0  I- 


HE  LUPERCALIA 


IRLF 


LBERTA  MILDRED  FRANKLIN 


:ed  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the  Requirements 
cne  Degree  of  Doctor  cf  Philosophy,  in  the 

acuity  of  Philosophy,  Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
1921 


EXCHANGE 


THE  LUPERCALIA 


By 

ALBERTA  MILDRED  FRANKLIN 


Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the  Requirements 

for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy,  in  the 

Faculty  of  Philosophy,  Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
1921 


THE  LUPERCALIA 

SYNOPSIS  OF  CHAPTERS 

I.  New  knowledge  about  the  religion  of  the  Mediterranean  race 
offers  a  new  basis  for  a  study  of  the  Lupercalia.    The  characteristic 
deity  of  the  Mediterranean  race  was  an  earth-goddess,  incarnate 
in  all  natural  objects,  the  giver  of  life  and  of  death,  and  worshipped 
by  orgiastic  rites.     The  characteristic  deity  of  the  Aryans  was  a 
sky-god,   who   was   honored  by  a  calm,   rationalistic  ceremonial. 

II.  The  ceremonial  rites  of  the  Lupercalia  were  complex  and 
seemingly  incoherent.     The  Romans  had  vague  ideas  about  the 
presiding  god,  but  regarded  the  purpose  of  the  festival  as  (a)  pro- 
tection from  evil,  (b)  productivity,  and  (c)  purification. 

III.  The  wolf-deity, ot  the  Greeks  was  Pelasgian;  he  represented 
the  devouring  power  of  the  underworld,  and  was  worshipped  by 
rites  of  expiation. 

IV.  The  wolf-deities  of  Italy,  among  them  Lupercus,  were  also 
dreaded   chthonic   powers,   and   had   cults  of   the   Mediterranean 
type.     The   Lupercalia  originated  among  the   Ligurians,   and   at 
first  consisted  of  the  sacrifice  of  a  goat  to  Lupercus,  a  ceremonial 
tasting  of  the  entrails,  an  expiatory  flight  by  the  priests,  and  a 
feast.    It  was  an  apotropaic  ceremony  designed  to  ward  off  evil. 

V.  The  goat-god  of  the  Greeks  was  a  Pelasgian  fertility  god. 
His  fertilizing  power  was  often  appropriated  by  anthropomorphic 
gods. 

VI.  In  Italy  the  goat-god  was  also  the  giver  of  fertility,  and 
originated  among  the  Ligurians.    Juno  was  closely  associated  with 
the  goat,  and  some  of  her  fertility  rites  were  added  by  the  Romans 
to  the  Lupercalia:    the  Luperci  girded  themselves  with  goat-skins 
and,  as  they  ran  about  the  Palatine,  struck  the  women  with  goat- 
skin thongs  as  a  fertility  charm.     Henceforth  the  gift  of  fertility 
was  one  of  the  important  purposes  of  the  Lupercalia. 

VII.  The  dog-cults  in  Greece  were  Pelasgian,  mainly  of  Thracian 
origin;  and  had  especial  potency  for  purification. 

VIII.  The  dog-cults  of  the  Italians  seem  to  have  been  borrowed 
from  the  Greeks  of  Southern  Italy  and  Sicily.    The  Sabines,  who 
adopted  many  Mediterranean   customs,  who  were  familiar  with 


2  The  Lupercalia 

the  purificatory  power  of  the  dog,  and  who  exerted  a  powerful 
influence  over  the  religion  of  Rome,  probably  added  the  sacrifice 
of  a  dog  to  the  Lupercalia.  Thus  purification  came  to  be  an  im- 
portant element  of  the  Lupercalia. 

IX.  The  blood-ceremonial  of  the  Lupercalia  finds  no  parallel 
in  Roman  cults,  but  is  similar  to  certain  rites  of  the  Orphics  which 
sought  to  assure  complete  union  with  the  deity.     It  is  probable 
that  these  Orphic  elements  were  added  to  the  Lupercalia  during 
the  war  with  Hannibal,  or  the  years  immediately  following,  when 
many  orgiastic  cults  of  the  Greeks  were  brought  into  Rome.    Thus 
the  Lupercalia  was  spiritualized  by  new  rites  of  cleansing  and  by 
the  assurance  of  kinship  with  the  deity. 

X.  In  its  development  the  Lupercalia  reflected  the  development 
of  the  Roman  people. 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTION 

Within  the  last  few  decades  the  work  of  the  archaeologist  and  of 
the  anthropologist,  revealing  the  civilization  that  existed  thousands 
of  years  ago,  has  brought  about  a  revolution  in  the  study  of  Ancient 
History.  Before  this  time  scholars  who  dealt  with  the  history,  the 
social  life,  and  the  religion  of  Greece  and  of  Italy  were  concerned 
preeminently  with  the  Aryan  peoples  who  invaded  those  peninsulas. 
The  earlier  stock  was  largely  disregarded,  as  being  merely  the 
aborigines  who  had  been  effaced  by  the  conquering  Hellenes  and 
Italians.  The  falsity  of  this  view  has  been  abundantly  demon- 
strated by  the  discovery  of  the  marvellous  civilization  of  Crete  and 
of  Mycenae.  Surely  a  people  so  numerous,  so  powerful,  and  so 
cultured  are  to  be  reckoned  with,  if  one  would  understand  the 
later  populace  of  those  lands.  The  Neolithic  inhabitants  of  Italy, 
too,  though  far  more  primitive  than  those  of  the  Aegean,  were 
possessed  of  a  civilization  too  clearly  marked  to  be  ignored. 

In  religion  more  than  in  any  other  realm  the  influence  of  these 
pre-Aryan  peoples  is  of  vital  significance.  The  sanctity  attaching 
to  religious  beliefs  and  ritual  makes  them  peculiarly  resistant  to 
change.  The  deity  of  a  certain  locality  is  supreme  in  his  limited 
realm,  and  his  cult  must  in  many  cases  be  received,  either  wholly 
or  in  part,  by  the  new-comers.  Consequently  the  divine  objects 
of  worship  and  the  ritualistic  acts  of  the  pre- Aryans  have  been  of 
late  years  increasingly  emphasized  in  investigations  dealing  with 
the  religion  of  Greece  or  of  Italy.1 

This  new  method  of  approach  arouses  a  hope  that  it  may  lead 
to  a  solution  of  some  of  the  puzzling  practices  of  Roman  ritual. 
Perhaps  the  most  interesting  and  the  most  perplexing  of  all  the 
Roman  festivals  is  the  Lupercalia,  with  its  incoherent  and  fantastic 
ceremonial,  its  prehistoric  origin,  and  the  varied  accounts  of  it. 
Consequently,  though  the  Lupercalia  has  been  a  subject  of  specula- 
tion since  Varro's  day,  it  is  worth  while,  now  that  we  have  a  new 
point  of  departure,  to  try  once  more  to  solve  the  riddle. 

Ethnologists  are  very  generally  agreed  that  the  Palaeolithic  Age 
in  Europe  was  terminated  by  the  appearance  of  a  new  race,  known 


4  The  Lupercalia 

as  the  Mediterranean  or  Eur-African.  In  physique  the  people  of 
this  race  were  uniformly  dolichocephalic,  of  medium  height,  and 
of  slight  build.  At  the  time  of  their  appearance  in  Europe  they 
had  attained  a  considerable  degree  of  civilization,  using  implements 
of  polished  stone,  and  showing  a  strong  tendency  to  an  agricultural, 
non-nomadic  life.  They  had  developed  definite  and  elaborate 
funerary  rites:  the  dead  were  buried,  often  in  a  carefully  constructed 
tomb,  and  were  surrounded  by  the  implements  which  they  had 
used  when  they  were  alive.  This  practice  argues  a  belief  in  a 
future  life  in  which  the  dead  continue  to  exist  in  the  grave,  keeping 
the  same  needs  and  interests  which  they  had  on  earth.  This 
Mediterranean  stock  gradually  spread  until  it  had  occupied  Meso- 
potamia, the  Mediterranean  basin,  Western  Europe,  the  British 
Isles  and  the  lowland  portions  of  Central  Europe  as  far  east  as  the 
upper  Danube.2  It  has  been  characterized  as  the  most  widely  extend- 
ed, the  most  populous,  and  the  most  primitive  of  European  races.3 

For  the  present  study  our  interest  must  be  centered  in  the 
branches  of  the  Mediterranean  race  that  settled  in  the  Aegean 
area  and  in  Italy.  To  designate  these,  two  ancient  terms  have  been 
restored  to  use.  The  branch  that  occupied  the  lands  which  later 
formed  Hellas  are  known  by  most  ethnologists  as  Pelasgians, 
the  one  occupying  Italy  as  Ligurians.4  Along  the  Mediterranean 
the  ease  of  communication  united  with  the  racial  kinship  of  the 
people  to  produce  a  highly  developed  and  homogeneous  civilization. 
From  the  oldest  culture  centers  of  Egypt  and  Crete,  civilization 
radiated  to  the  kindred,  but  less  advanced,  peoples  of  Asia  Minor, 
Greece,  Thrace,  the  Danube  area,5  Italy,  Sicily,  and  Spain.  Thus 
there  developed  in  the  peoples  dwelling  near  the  Mediterranean 
a  similarity  of  culture  which  is  recognized  by  all  authorities.6 

By  the  beginning  of  the  Bronze  Age  another  ethnic  group,  gener- 
ally known  as  Aryans,  Indo-Europeans,  Alpines,  or  Eur-Asiatics, 
had  occupied  the  Alpine  belt  which  extends  through  Europe  and 
Asia.  They  are  generally  believed  to  have  had  skulls  of  brachy- 
cephalic  form  and  larger  frames  than  those  of  the  Mediterraneans. 
Their  language  was  Indo-European.  From  very  early  times  they 
cremated  their  dead,  usually  burying  with  the  ashes  little  or  no 
funeral  furniture.7  This  practice  is  usually  interpreted  as  indicating 
a  belief  that  the  soul,  upon  death,  was  separated  from  the  body 
and  departed  to  a  remote  realm,  severed  from  all  contact  with  the 


Introduction  5 

living.8  The  Alpine  people  were  far  more  inclined  to  a  nomadic 
pastoral  life  than  were  the  Mediterraneans.9  Very  early,  it  seems, 
bands  of  Aryans  began  straying  into  Greece,  though,  according 
to  most  views,  their  influence  did  not  become  marked  until  the 
latter  part  of  the  Bronze  Age.  Then  during  several  centuries, 
down  to  the  beginning  of  the  Iron  Age,  a  series  of  Aryan  tribes 
overran  Greece,  Thrace,  the  Aegean  Islands,  and  the  coasts  of 
Asia  Minor.10  Italy,  whose  development  was  later  than  that  of 
Greece,  had  just  entered  upon  the  Bronze  Age  when  a  branch  of 
the  Alpines  migrated  to  the  Po  valley,  and  there  established  numer- 
ous settlements  which  are  known  as  terremare.  Toward  the  end 
of  the  Bronze  Age  bands  of  them  moved  southward,  and  one  group 
settled  in  Latium.  At  a  later  period  the  Umbro-Sabellians,  who 
had  been  long  separated  from  them,11  occupied  the  Apennines  and 
the  neighboring' valleys.12 

From  the  fusion  of  the  Mediterranean  populace  with  the  invading 
Aryans  arose  the  Greeks  and  the  Italians  of  historical  times.  In 
such  a  fusion  the  race  that  has,  through  many  centuries  of  habita- 
tion, become  adjusted  to  a  region  is  almost  sure  to  show  the  greater 
vitality  and,  in  the  end,  to  absorb  the  intruding  race.13  Thus, 
in  the  case  of  the  Greeks  and  the  Italians,  though  the  mixed  peoples 
adopted  the  Indo-European  language,  they  soon  reverted  to  the 
physical  type  of  the  Mediterraneans.  Even  today  the  southern 
Italians  are  the  physical  counterpart  of  the  people  who  inhabited 
Italy  before  the  Aryan  invasion.14  In  culture  and  in  religion,  as 
well  as  in  physical  type,  the  Mediterraneans,  who  vastly  out- 
numbered the  immigrants,  must  have  had  a  very  great  influence 
in  the  development  of  the  united  peoples. 

For  our  earliest  picture  of  the  religion  of  the  Mediterranean  race, 
we  turn  to  the  remains  of  Minoan  Crete  and  of  Mycenae.  There  we 
see  that  the  chief  object  of  worship  among  the  Pelasgians  was  a 
goddess,  who  was  evidently  an  earth-deity.  Often  associated  with 
her  was  a  youthful  male,  who  seems,  at  least  in  some  instances, 
to  have  been  a  sky-god.  He  always  appears  as  a  subordinate; 
the  goddess  was  the  all-important  divine  being.  She  was  embodied 
in  human  form,  and  frequently  had  a  lion,  a  dove,  a  snake,  or  some 
other  animal  in  attendance.  Numerous  representations  of  mon- 
strous figures,  part  human,  part  animal,  probably  portray  the 
lesser  numina  of  woods  and  waters.  Fetish  objects  of  especial 


6  The  Lupercalia 

sanctity  were  stones,  pillars,  trees,  animals  of  many  kinds,  and 
weapons,  such  as  the  shield  or  the  double-headed  axe.  These  cult- 
objects  typified  sometimes  the  varied  productive  power  of  the 
earth,  sometimes  man's  means  of  defense  against  his  enemies.  In 
primitive  times  they  were  probably  regarded  as  incarnations  of 
the  deity.  Later,  when  the  goddess  was  fully  anthropomorphized, 
they  became  her  emblems  or  her  attendant  animals.  The  deity 
was  not  worshipped  in  a  temple,  but  upon  a  mountain,  in  a  forest, 
beside  a  spring,  or,  most  frequently  of  all,  in  a  cave.  At  her  shrine 
men  offered  sacrifices  of  animals  or  of  fruits.  Figures  of  men  clad 
in  animal-skins,  which  frequently  appear  on  gems  or  on  seals,  are 
often  taken  as  representing  the  worshippers,  who  are  showing 
honor  to  the  deity  by  wearing  the  skin  of  her  sacred  animal.  The 
dead,  too,  were  objects  of  worship,  and  elaborate  ritual  acts  were 
performed  at  their  tombs.15 

This  Pelasgian  goddess  is  believed  to  have  been  closely  similar  in 
character  and  functions  to  the  Cretan  Rhea,  to  the  Phrygian 
Cybele,  to  many  forms  of  the  Greek  Artemis,  and  to  various 
other  deities  of  the  Aegean  area.16  Each  of  these  later  deities 
typifies  the  life-giving  power  of  the  earth.  Every  living  thing, 
whether  it  be  a  plant,  an  animal,  or  a  human  being,  derives  its 
existence  from  her.  She  likewise  takes  them  back  to  herself  at 
the  end  of  life.  This  goddess  is  no  departmental  deity,  but  has 
power  over  every  activity  of  man  or  of  the  universe.  Each  mani- 
festation of  nature  is  sacred  to  her  or  is  her  very  embodiment. 
Thus  she  may  be  adored  as  incarnate  in  the  stone,  the  tree,  the 
lion,  or  the  goat,  her  particular  form  in  each  locality  being  deter- 
mined by  the  physical  features  of  that  place  and  the  character  of 
the  people  inhabiting  it.  The  sphere  of  action  of  the  goddess  is 
intensely  local,  her  power  and  manifestations  in  each  region  being 
inseparably  attached  to  some  definite  place.  She  is  the  goddess 
of  love,  and  is  constantly  associated  with  a  lover  or  a  son,  as  Attis, 
Adonis,  or  Dionysus.17  To  him  the  bull  is  especially  sacred. 
This  male  god  is  not  immortal,  but  shares  the  seasonal  changes  of 
vegetation,  dying  in  the  fall  and  reviving  to  new  life  in  the  spring. 
These  occasions  are  celebrated  by  the  worshippers  with  extravagant 
orgies  of  mourning  and  of  joy.  In  the  death  and  the  resurrection 
of  the  deity  the  people  find  assurance  of  human  immortality.  Much 
of  the  homage  offered  by  this  agricultural  people  to  its  earth-goddess 


Introduction  7 

consists  of  fertility  charms  to  arouse  the  dormant  powers  of  pro- 
ductivity or  to  secure  rain  for  the  crops.  But  often,  for  scribe  in- 
scrutable reason,  the  goddess  withholds  her  blessings,  and  sends 
barrenness,  blight,  and  pestilence  upon  her  people.  To  avert 
these  destructive  forces  and  to  set  free  all  beneficent  activities, 
the  devotees  resort  to  strange  orgiastic  practices.  Often  they  seek 
to  propitiate  the  dread  goddess  by  the  sacrifice  of  a  human  being.18 
Frequently  the  ill-will  of  the  deity  is  attributed  to  some  sin  com- 
mitted by  man.  Therefore  rites  of  cleansing  are  of  vital  impor- 
tance. Often  man  seeks  guidance  from  oracles,  through  which 
the  earth-deity  speaks  to  her  people.  The  earth-goddess,  who 
nourishes  the  living,  also  receives  the  dead.  They  continue  to 
live  on  in  the  tomb,  and  are,  if  duly  honored,  the  kindly  protectors 
of  their  descendants;  but,  if  angered,  they  become  merciless  demons, 
and  must  be  "averted"  by  ceremonies  of  riddance.  Often  the  more 
distinguished  dead  develop  into  local  heroes  and  are  honored  by 
cult-acts  similar  to  those  performed  to  chthonic  deities.  This 
worship  of  earth-goddess  and  of  local  divinities,  while  it  is  a  religion 
of  fear,  and  is  expressed  in  barbarous  and  magic  rites,  has  in  it  the 
lofty  elements  of  dependence  upon  the  deity,  of  the  sense  of  im- 
purity, and  of  the  possibility  of  cleansing  and  of  communion  with 
the  god.19  Sir  Arthur  Evans  says  of  this  chthonic  religion  that 
it  is  characteristically  non-Hellenic,  having  nothing  to  do  with  the 
traditions  of  primitive  Aryan  religion.20 

An  equally  detailed  picture  of  the  religious  beliefs  of  the  pre- 
historic Aryans  is,  unfortunately,  impossible.  When  the  Aryans 
migrated  from  their  primitive  home  they  went  to  lands  which, 
in  most  cases,  were  already  occupied.  A  racial  modification  of 
the  Aryans  must,  accordingly,  have  begun  in  the  very  earliest 
times.21  Concerning  the  original  religion  of  the  Aryans,  who  were 
already  a  mixed  race  when  they  appeared  upon  the  stage  of  history, 
we  can  draw  only  general  conclusions  based  upon  philology  and 
upon  the  religious  beliefs  which  were  common  to  the  oldest  Aryan 
peoples.  Most  authorities  agree  that  the  sky,  with  its  varied  mani- 
festations, was  the  supreme  object  of  worship  among  all  primitive 
peoples  who  spoke  the  Indo-European  language.22  The  sky  was 
early  embodied  in  a  god  who  was  called  "the  father,"  as  "father 
Zeus,"  or  "Jupiter."  There  was,  perhaps,  the  conception  of  the 
earth  as  mother,  the  wife  of  the  sky-god,  but  her  importance  was- 


8  The  Lupercalia 

slight  compared  to  that  of  her  spouse.  There  was,  therefore,  an 
emphasis  exactly  opposite  to  that  of  the  Mediterranean  religion, 
in  which  the  earth-mother  was  supreme,  and  the  sky-god  her 
subordinate.23 

For  the  oldest  literary  picture  of  the  religion  of  the  Hellenes  we 
turn  to  the  Homeric  Poems.  These  cannot  be  accepted  as  a  por- 
trayal of  a  purely  Aryan  religion,  for  Homer's  Achaeans,  who  had 
been  in  Greece  for  many  years,  perhaps  for  several  centuries,  had 
adopted  much  of  the  civilization  of  the  Pelasgians,  and  must  also 
have  been  influenced  by  Pelasgian  cults.  But,  even  so,  they  had 
a  slighter  admixture  of  Pelasgian  blood  and  ideas  than  had  the 
Greeks  who  appear  in  any  of  the  later  literature.  Therefore  it  is 
reasonable  to  attribute  to  Aryan  influence  the  Achaean  religious 
beliefs  and  cults  which  are  markedly  different  from  those  of  the 
Pelasgians,  especially  if  such  beliefs  and  cults  are  to  be  found  among 
other  Aryan  peoples  when  at  about  the  same  stage  of  development. 

The  religion  which  is  portrayed  in  the  Homeric  Poems  is  pre- 
eminently rational,  with  only  an  occasional  suggestion  of  mysticism. 
Instead  of  a  chthonic  deity  and  a  host  of  vague  and  nameless 
numina,  the  Achaeans  worshipped  anthropomorphic  gods  who 
lived  in  palaces  on  Mount  Olympus,  and  were  organized  into  an 
orderly  commonwealth  with  Zeus,  the  god  of  the  sky,  at  their 
head.  These  deities  were  highly  specialized,  each  one  having  some 
definite  province  and  function  of  his  own.24  They  had  none  of 
the  mystery  which  attached  to  the  Mediterranean  gods,  but  were 
strongly  individual  and  human,  having  the  might  of  gods,  but  all 
the  wicked  passions  of  mortals.25  Men  treated  them  like  human 
beings,  sometimes  upbraiding  them,  or  even  making  sport  of  them, 
as  is  done  in  the  story  told  by  Demodocus  about  Ares  and  Aphro- 
dite.26 The  Achaean  gods  were  not,  like  the  Pelasgian,  limited  in 
their  power  to  some  special  spot;  they  were  the  gods  of  the  tribe 
rather  than  of  the  place.  In  their  ritual  acts  Homer's  people  did 
not  perform  mysterious  or  orgiastic  ceremonies,  nor  did  they  resort 
to  magic  to  secure  the  growth  of  crops  or  the  increase  of  their  herds; 
instead,  they  prayed  to  the  gods  and  offered  sacrifice  in  decorous 
fashion.27  Those  acts  duly  performed,  man's  whole  duty  to  the 
gods  was  done.  He  had  in  their  presence  no  consciousness  of  sin 
or  of  the  need  of  cleansing.  If  he  had  committed  a  murder,  he  was 
not  required  to  atone  to  the  gods,  unless  the  injured  man  were, 


Introduction  9 

like  the  priest  Chryses,28  especially  dear  to  one  of  them,  but  he 
paid  a  fine  to  the  nearest  kinsman  of  his  victim.  When  he  had 
thus  made  reparation,  he  did  not  need  to  be  purified,  as  in  later 
times,  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  nor  did  he  fear  the  pursuit  of 
a  vengeful  ghost.  The  dread  of  demons  and  the  worship  of  heroes 
is,  indeed,  almost  unknown  in  the  Homeric  Poems.  When  the  body 
of  a  man  had  been  consumed  upon  the  funeral  pyre,  his  soul  was  be- 
lieved to  depart  to  Hades,  where  he  lived  a  vague  shadow  existence, 
remote  from  the  activities  of  the  living.  Libations  were  offered  as 
a  part  of  the  burial  ceremonies,  but  there  was  no  cult  attached  to 
the  grave,  as  there  was  to  the  tombs  of  Pelasgian  heroes.29 

In  comparison  with  the  Mediterranean  religion,  the  religion  of 
the  Homeric  Poems  was  rationalistic  instead  of  occult,  a  worship 
of  calmness  instead  of  ecstasy,  a  homage  paid  to  immortal,  anthro- 
pomorphic, specialized  gods  with  a  sky-god  as  their  chief,  instead 
of  to  gods  who  were  mortal,  of  shifting,  often  of  theriomorphic, 
form,  among  whom  an  earth-mother  was  the  supreme  deity. 

In  the  religion  of  classic  Greece  these  two  strains  seem  to  have 
united.  There  are,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Olympian  gods  and  the 
state  ritual  substantially  as  they  are  portrayed  in  Homer.  But 
along  with  them  are  many  cult-practices  which  are  attested  by 
archaeology  and  by  literature30  that  correspond  to  Pelasgian  instead 
of  to  Homeric  religion.  The  rite  of  inhumation,  which  seemed 
almost  unknown  in  Homer,  has  again  become  common.  The 
Homeric  indifference  to  chthonic  deities  and  to  mysticism  has 
disappeared,  and  the  worship  of  gods  of  the  earth  and  the  per- 
formance of  magic  rites  of  the  most  primitive  kind  is  widespread. 
The  homage  paid  to  the  Brauronian  Artemis,  the  sanctity  attaching 
to  the  Eleusinian  Mysteries,  and  the  human  sacrifice  offered  to 
Zeus  Lycaeus,  all  seem  far  removed  from  the  sanity  of  the  Olympian 
religion.  Not  only  in  remote  places  like  Arcadia  did  these  relics  of 
savage  belief  persist,  but  they  found  a  stronghold  even  in  intellectual 
Athens.  Orphism,  which  took  as  its  chief  deity  Dionysus,  a  god 
having  all  the  characteristics  of  a  nature-spirit  of  the  Mediter- 
raneans, and  which  derived  its  ritual  acts  from  the  most  primitive 
practices  of  Crete,  developed  a  theology  that  was  the  loftiest  ex- 
pression of  Mediterranean  creeds.  This  Orphic  theology  profoundly 
influenced  some  of  the  greatest  minds  of  Greece.31 

It  seems  an  anomaly  that  a  people  which,  in  about  the  ninth 


io  The  Lupercalia 

century  before  Christ,  was  almost  free  from  occultism,  witchcraft, 
and  hero  worship,  should  afterward  revert  to  the  beliefs  of  a  remote 
past.  The  natural  and  the  generally  accepted  explanation  is  found 
in  the  dual  origin  of  the  Greeks,  composed,  as  they  were,  of  Pelas- 
gians  and  of  Aryans.32  The  assumption  that  the  presence  in  Greek 
religion  of  chthonic  deities  and  of  chthonic  cults  is  due  to  the 
Pelasgian  strain  of  the  populace  seems  almost  inescapable  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  these  cults  were  most  marked  in  the  places  that 
had  the  smallest  infusion  of  Aryan  blood.  These  regions  were 
Crete,  whose  Pelasgian  civilization  was  too  deep-rooted  to  be  effaced 
by  the  invaders;33  Arcadia,  whose  people  were  regarded  as  the  most 
typically  Pelasgian  of  any  Greek  populace,  and  whose  cults,  the  most 
primitive  in  all  Greece,  show  a  close  affinity  to  those  of  Minoan 
Crete;34  Attica,  whose  Pelasgian  stock  was  less  adulterated  than 
that  of  any  other  land  of  continental  Greece  except  Arcadia;35 
Boeotia,  which  was  influenced  more  deeply  by  Crete  than  by  the 
Aryans;36  Lycia,  which  in  prehistoric  times  seems  to  have  been 
closely  connected  with  the  Cretans,  and  which  remained  dominantly 
Mediterranean  in  race  and  cults;37  and  the  lonians  of  Asia  Minor, 
who  had  the  largest  infusion  of  Pelasgian  blood  of  any  Hellenic 
stock.38  In  all  these  lands  the  religion  was  strongly  chthonic.39 
From  these  facts  Andrew  Lang  concludes  that  the  Achaeans  im- 
ported a  new,  lofty,  and  brief-lived  set  of  ideas  and  customs.40 

In  the  union  of  the  two  religions,  compromises  of  every  kind 
were  effected.  Frequently  the  local  god  was  absorbed  by,  or  was 
regarded  as  identical  with,  one  of  the  Olympian  deities.  Under 
this  influence,  the  Pelasgian  cult  was  often  purged  of  its  wild  excesses 
and  its  cruel  rites.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Mediterranean  god 
frequently  changed  his  name,  but  not  his  character,  and  continued 
to  receive  the  same  primitive  homage  as  before.  Often  the  animal 
in  whom  the  earth-god  was  incarnated  became  attached  to  the 
Aryan  god.  This  god  appears  at  times,  therefore,  in  guise  of  the 
animal,  or  attended  by  it.  Often  this  animal  is  the  most  acceptable 
sacrifice  that  can  be  offered  to  the  god.  In  every  possible  manner 
the  new  ideas  are  seen  mingled  with  the  old. 

In  the  religion  of  the  Romans  it  is  vastly  harder  than  in  the 
religion  of  the  Greeks  to  disentangle  Mediterranean  beliefs  from 
Aryan  creeds.  There  was  no  Italian  Homer  to  portray  the  religious 
ideas  of  the  Latins  or  of  the  Umbrians.  The  dominant  position  of 


Introduction  1 1 

Rome  tended  to  smooth  down  the  local  differences  in  religious 
practice  which  are  often  a  valuable  guide  in  Greek  religion.  Archae- 
ology tells  us,  however,  that  before  the  invasion  of  the  Aryans 
every  part  of  Italy  was  occupied  by  the  Ligurians,  whose  civilization 
was  in  the  essentials  markedly  similar  to  that  of  the  Pelasgians,41 
and  had  been,  indeed,  to  some  extent  inspired  by  them.42  Traders 
and,  perhaps,  colonists  from  the  lands  of  the  Pelasgians  caused  the 
Neolithic  civilization  of  Southern  Italy  and  of  Sicily  to  become 
more  closely  associated  with  Crete  and  the  Aegean  world  than 
with  Northern  Italy.43 

When  the  Ligurians  were  overrun  by  the  Aryans,  a  mixture  of 
race  and  of  culture  similar  to  the  mixture  which  we  have  observed 
in  Greece  seems  to  have  occurred  in  Italy.  In  many  localities 
of  Italy  are  found  inhumation-tombs  and  cremation-urns  belonging 
to  the  same  period.44  In  this  fusion  the  terramara  folk  could  hardly 
have  failed  to  be  profoundly  influenced  by  the  earlier  inhabitants 
of  the  land.  Professor  Pinza  holds  that  the  civilization  of  Latium 
borrowed  from  the  Stone  Age  its  rites,  its  technical  processes,  its 
habitations,  its  tomb  architecture,  and  its  artistic  taste.45  Professor 
Modestov  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  we  might  consider  the  population 
as  not  Latin  at  all,  except  for  a  certain  number  of  incineration- 
graves.  He  regards  it,  therefore,  as  wholly  natural  that  the  Latins 
and  the  Romans  had  in  their  religious  beliefs  been  deeply  influenced 
by  the  Ligurians.46 

In  the  religion  of  historical  Rome  are  found  two  strains  that 
are  similar  to  those  of  Greek  religion.  There  were,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  sky-god  Jupiter  and  the  other  gods  of  the  state  cult, 
who,  until  they  fell  under  Greek  influence,  were  little  more  than 
highly  specialized  abstractions,  their  power  and  nature  being  defined 
instantly  by  their  names.  The  Indigitamenta  of  the  Romans  offer 
one  of  the  best  examples  of  the  Sondergotter  of  the  Aryans.  The 
religious  ceremonial  of  the  Romans  was  orderly  and  unimaginative, 
similar  in  its  type  to  the  Homeric  cults.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
were  chthonic  deities,  whose  origin  was  lost  in  antiquity,  and 
whose  ritual  consisted  largely  of  fertility  charms  and  magic  rites. 
There  were  many  cult-survivals  that  recall  the  characteristic 
features  of  the  Mediterranean  religion.  Veneration  of  springs, 
trees,  and  sacred  animals  was  widespread,  and  ceremonies  to  avert 
evil  and  to  secure  purification  were  common.47 


12  The  Lupercalia 

This  dual  strain  in  Roman  religion  seems  most  naturally  inter- 
preted by  an  analogy  with  the  religion  of  Hellas.  In  Italy  and  in 
Greece  the  basic  stock  was  Mediterranean,  the  subdivisions  that 
settled  in  the  two  peninsulas  being  closely  related.  In  both  Greece 
and  Italy  the  Aryan  invaders  showed  the  same  skeletal  structure, 
followed  the  same  practice  of  cremation,  spoke  kindred  dialects 
of  the  Indo-European  language,48  and  worshipped  a  sky-god  called 
by  the  same  name.  In  each  land  archaeology  proves  that  a  fusion 
of  races  took  place.  In  Greece  the  honor  given  to  earth-deities 
seems  almost  inevitably  traceable  to  the  Pelasgians.  Consequently 
the  parallel  conclusion  for  Rome  seems  reasonable.49  The  Romans 
themselves  felt  that  chthonic  gods  were  alien  to  them,  for  they 
constantly  remarked  on  the  affinity  of  such  deities  to  some  earth- 
god  of  the  Greeks,  or,  in  many  cases,  held  them  to  be  a  Pelasgian 
importation.50  Furthermore,  the  localization  of  many  of  the  chthonic 
cults  of  Italy  gives  cause  for  connecting  them  with  the  ancient 
inhabitants  of  the  land.  If  a  cult  is  strongly  associated  with  some 
prominent  natural  object,  such  as  a  mountain,  a  river,  a  cave,  a 
spring,  or  a  tree,  we  have  a  strong  reason  for  believing  that  it  was 
a  product  of  the  race  that  had  been  longest  established  in  that 
place.  Later  invaders  find  the  spirits  of  these  places  exalted  by  a 
homage  that  has  been  developing  for  centuries.  Inevitably  they 
desire  to  secure  the  favor  of  these  gods  of  their  new  abiding  place, 
and  so  they  accept  the  established  cult.  Mr.  Gomme  says:  "Let 
us  once  clearly  understand  that  the  local  fetishism  to  be  found  in 
Aryan  countries  simply  represents  the  undying  faiths  of  the  older 
race".51 

In  the  present  study  of  the  Lupercalia,  the  attempt  will  be  made 
to  learn  the  origin  of  its  various  cult-features  by  comparing  them 
with  similar  cults  or  beliefs  among  the  Romans  and  the  Greeks. 
In  this  investigation  the  localization  of  a  cult — that  is,  the  people 
by  whom  it  was  first  practised,  and  its  association  with  some  natural 
feature  of  the  country — is  a  point  to  be  kept  constantly  in  mind. 
Moreover,  far  more  illumination  is  to  be  obtained  from  Greek  reli- 
gion than  from  Roman.  The  individuality  of  the  Greek  states  offers 
in  many  cases  a  reasonable  degree  of  certainty  for  discrimination 
between  the  cults  of  the  Aryans  and  those  of  the  Pelasgians.  When, 
therefore,  we  find  a  cult  in  Greece  that  is  Pelasgian,  and  a  similar 
cult  of  Italy  which  has  been  from  ancient  times  closely  attached 


Introduction  1 3 

to  some  prominent  object  of  the  landscape,  and  which  was  by  the 
Romans  themselves  assigned  to  a  non-Roman  populace,  the  logical 
conclusion  is  that  the  Italian  cult  belonged  to  the  religion  of  the 
Ligurians. 

In  the  study  of  a  subject  like  the  Lupercalia,  one  cannot  hope 
to  arrive  at  an  incontrovertible  conclusion.  The  antiquity  of 
the  festival  and  the  scanty  evidence  concerning  certain  parts  of 
it  preclude  so  ambitious  a  hope.  We  must,  consequently,  be  con- 
tent with  the  modest  aim  of  establishing  a  reasonable  theory. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  I 

(The  first  time  a  book  is  cited,  the  title  is  given  in  full; 
after  that,  an  abbreviation  is  used.} 

1.  This  point  is  stressed  by  Sir  Arthur  Evans,  Minoan  and  Mycenaean  Element 
in  Hellenic  Life,  in  J.H.S.  vol.  xxxii,  1912,  277.     See  also  Schrader,  Die  Indo- 
germanen,  132,  153;   id.  Prehistoric  Antiquities  of  the  Aryan  Peoples,  iv;   Farnell, 
in  The  Year's  Work  in  Classical  Studies,  1908,  71 ;  Lang,  The  World  of  Homer,  2. 

2.  For  the  theories  about  the  Mediterranean  race,  see  Sergi,  The  Mediterranean 
Race,  30-40,  247-65;    Ripley,  The  Races  of  Europe,  461-70;    Keane,  The  World's 
Peoples,  307-12;    id.  Man,  Past  and  Present,  446-54;    Taylor,  The  Origin  of  the 
Aryans,  54-69,  92-101;    Myres,  The  Dawn  of  History,  39-43;    Meyer,  Geschichte 
des  Altertums,  i.  2.  809-34;   Hawes,  Crete,  The  Forerunner  of  Greece,  22-5,  144-6; 
Mackenzie,  Myths  of  Crete  and  P re-Hellenic  Europe,  57-8,  164;    Peet,  The  Stone 
and  Bronze  Ages  in  Italy,  1 1 1,  163-77;  Modestov,  Introduction  a  Vhistoire  romaine, 
110-13. 

3.  Ripley,  451;  Keane,  W.  P.,  312;  Grant,  The  Passing  of  the  Great  Race,  149. 

4.  These  terms,  as  used  by  modern  authorities,  include  all  the  pre-Aryans 
(See  Schrader,  Aryan  Religion,  in  Hastings,  Ency.  ReL,  vol.  i,  35;  Hall,   The 
Oldest  Civilization  of  Greece,  83-4).    Thus  Minyae,  Leleges,  Carians,  Eteocretans, 
and  other  less  important  groups  are  now  all  known  as  Pelasgians;    while  Siculi, 
Ausonians,  and  others  are  grouped  together  as  Ligurians. 

5.  Some  authorities  prefer  to  regard  the  civilization  in  the  Danube  area  as  an 
independent  northern  development.     See  J.  Hampel,   Neuere  Studien  uber  die 
Kupferzeit,  in  Zeitschr.  fur  Eth.,  vol.  xxviii,  1896,  57-91. 

6.  Sergi,  275;    Ripley,  130;    Hall,  The  Ancient  History  of  the  Near  East,  5; 
Mosso,  The  Dawn  of  Mediterranean  Civilization,  62.     For  the  characteristics  of 
Mediterranean  civilization,  see  Hall,  Aegean  Archaeology,  44-254;  id.  O.  C.  G., 
83-104;  id.  N.  E.,  56-61 ;  Hogarth,  Authority  and  Archaeology,  Sacred  and  Profane, 
228-42;  Mackenzie,  Crete,  191-292;   Burrows,  The  Discoveries  in  Crete,  197-201; 
Hawes,  27-45,  et  passim;  Sergi,  266-315;    Myres,  D.  H.,  42;  Beloch,  Griechische 
Geschichte,  i.  i.  71-3,  96-125;  Meyer,  i.2.  762-94;  Keane,  M.  P.  P.  462-8,  528-30; 
Grant,  153-5;  Worsaae,  The  Prehistory  of  the  North,  19-23. 


14  The  Lupercalia 

7.  Ripley,  470-5;    Keane,  W,  P.,  355-6;  id.  M.  P.  P.,  501-6;  Beddoe,   The 
Anthropological  History  of  Europe,  15;    Sergi,  237-46;    263-5;    Taylor,  69-92; 
Peet,  370;    Mackenzie,  Crete,  151;    Kretschmer,  Einleitung  in  die  Geschichte  der 
griechischen  Sprache,  59~75- 

8.  Hogarth,  Auth.  and  Arch.,  247;   Chadwick,    The  Heroic  Age,   422,   425; 
Schrader,  Ar.  ReL,  in  Hastings,  Ency.  ReL,  ii,  30;  Mackenzie,  Crete,  xlvii;  Rohde, 
Psyche,  Seelencult  und  Unsterblichkeitsglaube  der  Griechen,  i,  249. 

9.  Beloch,  i.  i.  80;  Taylor,  89,  164-5;   Mackenzie,  Crete,  151,  233. 

10.  Hall,  0.  C.  G.,  104;    Hawes,   25-6;    Burrows,   201-2;    Keane,  M.  P.  P., 
532-4;   Meyer,  i.  2.  804-8,  815-34;  Cotterill,  Ancient  Greece,  28,  34-6. 

11.  Modestov,  239-40. 

12.  Munro,  Palaeolithic  Man  and  the  Terramara  Settlements  in  Europe,  338-45, 
413-29;  Modestov,  103,  143-285;   Peet,  331-71,  396-9;    Piganiol,  Essai  sur  les 
origines  de  Rome,  15-22;  Sergi,  176-9;  Keane,  M.P.P.,  528-9.  Dr.  Beddoe  (129) 
says  that  the  Aryan  waves  of  immigration  largely  spent  themselves  in  the  north. 

13.  Ripley,  30-3;  Taylor,  198-203;   Mackenzie,  Crete,  146-7. 

14.  Ripley,  269-72;    Evans,  /.  H.  S.,  vol.  xxxii,  287. 

15.  Evans,  Mycenaean  Tree  and  Pillar  Cult,  in  /.  H.  S.,  vol.  xxi,  1901,  99-204; 
Hogarth,  Aegean  Religion,m  Hastings,  Ency.  ReL,  i,  141-8;  Dussaud,  Les  civilisa- 
tions prehelleniques, 327-413;   Hall,  A.  A.,  145-77;  id.  O.  C.G.,  293-302;  Tsountas 
and  Manatt,  Mycenaean  Age,  294-302;   Graillot,  Le  Cult-e  de  Cybele,  1-45    Bur- 
rows, 112-14,  I27»  Mackenzie,  Crete,  xliv-xlvii,  59-60,  159-62,  293-312;   Hawes, 
139-43;   Reinach,  Orpheus,  76-8;   Meyer,  i.  2.  789;   Beloch,  i.   i.  110-13;   Cot- 
terill, 48-56;    Kretschmer,  194-5. 

16.  Evans,  Scripta  Minoa,  291;   Farnell,  The  Cults  of  the  Greek  States,  iii,  1-2, 
291-2;    Hall,  N.E.,  52;    Dr.  Mackenzie  (Crete,  61-9,  Myths  of  Babylonia  and 
Assyria,  101-4)  notes  that  this  Pelasgian  goddess  was  also  akin  to  the  great  earth- 
deities  of  Babylonia,  Egypt,  Germany,  and  the  British  Isles.    See  also  Graillot,  5. 

17.  Although  Dionysus  seems  to  have  originated  as  an  Aryan  deity  (Beloch,  i. 
I.  165,  n.  i),  he  is  believed  to  have  absorbed  very  early,  under  Pelasgian  influence, 
the  characteristics  of  an  earth-god   (Hall,   N.  E.,  476;    Farnell,    Natural  and 
Comparative  Religion,  18;   Beloch,  i.  i.  165;  Dussaud,  392;  Campbell,  Religion  in 
Greek  Literature,  269). 

1 8.  The  existence  of  human  sacrifice  in  Crete  has  not  been  proven  by  the 
excavations  (Hogarth,  Aeg.  ReL,  in  Hastings,  Ency.  ReL,  i,  146),  though  it  may  be 
echoed  in  the  legend  of  the  victims  offered  to  the  Minotaur  (Harrison,  Prolegomena 
to  the  Study  of  Greek  Religion,  482;    Cotterill,  56;    Piganiol,  99).     In  Arcadia, 
Attica,  and  other  territories  in  which  the  populace  was  dominantly  Mediter- 
ranean, both  cult  and  legend  give  numerous  proofs  of  the  practice  of  human 
sacrifice.     Dr.  Westermarck    (The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Moral  Ideas, 
i,  443-54)  notes  that  it   is  especially  frequent   in  agricultural  rites.    See  also 
Mackenzie,  Bab.,  104;   Farnell,  iii,  93. 

19.  For  a  description  of  the  chthonic  cults  of  the  Aegean  peoples,  see  Evans, 
J.  H.  S.,  vol.  xxxii,  279-80;   Meyer,  i.  2.  705-33;   Hall,  0.  C.  G.,  293-302;   Dus- 
saud, 385-93;    Graillot,  7-24;    Murray,  Four  Stages  of  Greek  Religion,  15-53; 
Rohde,  i,  204-15;   249-50;    Lippert,  Allgemeine  Geschichte  des  Priestertums,  ii, 


Introduction  1 5 

503;  Tsountas  and  Manatt,  302-12;  Mackenzie,  Crete,  69-72,  153-8,  165-90; 
id.  Bab.,  81-101;  Lawson,  Modern  Greek  Folklore  and  Ancient  Greek  Religion, 
529,536-9,562-9,576-90;  Cotterill,  44,  48-57;  M y res,  D.  H.,  186-7;  Dieterich, 
Mutter  Erde,  10,  84,  et  passim;  Farnell,  iii,  1-28,  289-305;  Harrison,  8-31,  et 
passim. 

20.  /.  H.  S.,  vol.  xxxii,  280. 

21.  Schrader,  Indoger.,  132;   id.  Ar.  ReL,  in  Hastings,  Ency.  Rel.,  ii,  36. 

22.  Schrader,  Indoger.,  141,  143;   id.  Ar.  Rel.,  in  Hastings,  Ency.  Rel.,  ii,  15, 
33;   Meyer,  i.  2.  867;   Beloch,  i.  I.  152. 

23.  For  a  survey  of  the  religion  of  the  primitive  Aryans,  see  Schrader,  Indoger., 
132-49;    id.  Ar.  Rel.,  in  Hastings,  Ency.  Rel.,  ii,  30-8,  et  passim;   Meyer,  i.  2. 
867-73,  9*5;   Beloch,  i.  i.  150-65.    It  is  usually  held  that  the  sky-god  appeared 
in  this  early  period  in  the  form  of  a  tree  or  of  an  animal.    But  the  proof  of  that 
statement  rests  upon  the  forms  of  the  sky-god  seen  in  later  times,  after  the  Aryans 
had,  in  their  various  new  dwelling  places,  mingled  with  the  older  inhabitants.    For 
example,  Schrader,  to  prove  that  Zeus  was  embodied  in  a  tree  or  in  an  animal, 
cites  Zeus  of  Dodona  and  Zeus  Lycaeus  (Ar.  ReL,  in  Hastings,  Ency.  ReL,  ii.  45, 
37-8).    But  Dodona  was,  according  to  all  ancient  traditions,  Pelasgian  (Horn.  //., 
16.  233;  Herod,  2.  52),  and  is  so  accepted  by  modern  scholars  (Graillot,  7;  Camp- 
bell, 38;  Cotterill,  58);  and  Zeus  Lycaeus,  as  we  shall  see  later  (See  pp.  21-4)  was 
a  Pelasgic  deity  with  whom  Zeus  had  no  kinship  either  in  character  or  cult. 
Meyer  (i.  2.  915)  says  that  there  is  scarcely  a  trace  of  Baumkultus,  nor  yet  of  a 
cult  of  actual  animals,  among  the  Aryans.     Dr.  Beloch  (i.  i.  152)  believes  that 
various  animal   epithets   of   Hellenic  deities,  such  as  BOWTTIS  "Hp?7,or  rXau/ooTrts 
'A057W7,  go  back,  at  least  in  part,  to  the  Mycenaean  Age.    It  seems  safer,  therefore, 
to  make  no  attempt  to  visualize  the  deities  worshipped  by  the  ancient  Aryans. 

24.  This  tendency  to  departmental  gods,  or  Sondergotter,  as  they  are  called 
by  Dr.  Usener  (Gotternamen,  75),  is  accepted  as  one  of  the  most  characteristic 
features  of  Aryan  religion  (Schrader,  Ar.  ReL,  in  Hastings,  Ency.  ReL,  ii,  32; 
Usener,  122. 

25.  Dr.  Farnell  (N.  C.  R.,  13)  says:  "Of  the  Hellenic  religion  no  feature  is  so 
salient  as  its  anthropomorphism."    He  believes  that  the  lack  of  mystic  qualities 
of  the  Hellenic  gods  was  due  to  their  anthropomorphic  form,  saying  (N.  C.  R.,  16) 
that  theriomorphism  lends  itself  to  mysticism  because  of  the  need  of  seeing  some- 
thing back  of  the  crude  animal  form;    whereas  the  Olympian  deities  could  seem 
nothing  else  than  glorified  human  beings. 

26.  Horn.,  Odys.,  8.  266-366. 

27.  The  sacrifices  offered  to  the  gods  were  regularly  domestic  animals.    The 
only  time  that  a  human  being  was  sacrificed  was  at  the  funeral  of  Patroclus 
(Horn.,  //.,  23.  23)  and  that  was  not  an  offering  to  the  gods  (Lang,  Homer  and  his 
-4^,95-6). 

28.  Horn.,  //.,  i.  lo-u. 

29.  For  the  religion  of  the  Achaeans,  see  Adam,   The  Religious  Teachers  of 
Greece,  21-67;   Campbell,  56-83;   Lang,  W.  H.,  132-4,  266-7;   Leaf,  Homer  and 
History,  11-23;  Murray,  57~995  Rohde,  i,  9-32,  43-8,  97,  126,  271  n.3;  Chadwick, 
415-26;   Cotterill,  45-7;   Lawson,  521-2,  529-30. 


1 6  The  Lupercalia 

30.  These  two  strains  are  noted  by  Isocrates  (Or.,  5.  117).    Occultism,  hero 
worship,  fear  of  ghosts,  magic,  and  rites  of  purification  are  mentioned  very  fre- 
quently by  Hesiod,  the  Cyclic  Poets,  Pindar,  and  the  tragic  writers,  especially 
Aeschylus  (Lang,  H.  A.,  20;   id.  W.  H.,  2,  150;   Campbell,  108-9,  r73»  278-80, 
283-4).    For  the  evidence  of  archaeology,  see  Harrison,  166-82,  et  passim. 

31.  For  these  two  strains  in  Greek  religion,  see  Reinach,  Orpheus,  78-91; 
Rohde,  i,  200-2;    Campbell,  127-36,  238-66;    Tsountas  and  Manatt,  313-14; 
Cotterill,  43;    Lang,  W.  H.,  117;    Gruppe,  Griechische  Mythologie  und  Religions- 
geschichte,  48-50,  58-61,  101-4,  et  passim;   Farnell,  i,  261-2,  iv,  1-8,  112-13,  et 
passim;    Harrison,  1-7,  363~453>  473-5".  et  passim. 

32.  Hogarth,  Auth.  and  Arch.,  243;    Hall,  A.  A.,  85;    id.  N.  £.,  520;    Leaf, 
261-83;   Beloch,  i.  i.  92,  150;   Evans,  New  Archaeological  Lights  on  the  Origin  of 
Civilization  in   Europe,   in   Smithsonian   Institute  Annual  Report,    1917,   444; 
Myres,  D.  H.,  216.     Mr.  Lawson  has  traced  in  modern  Greek  religion  many 
survivals  of  Pelasgian  religion  (79-98,  43-44,  et  passim],  and  shows  (5-52)  that 
these  elements  had  a  far  more  vital  hold  upon  the  people  than  had  the  Olympian 
deities.    The  same  survival  of  pre-Aryan  elements  has  been  noted  in  the  religion 
of  India.    Dr.  Keane  (Aborigines,  in  Hastings,  Ency.  Rel.,  i,  35)  states  that  the 
Aryan  deities  of  that  land  are  all  of  the  sky,  that  they  are  on  a  kindly  and  familiar 
footing  with  their  worshippers,  and  have  no  gross  or  cruel  forms  of  worship; 
whereas  the  chthonic  deities  of  the  Aborigines  must  be  appeased  by  blood.     In 
the  union  of  the  two  races,  it  is  stated,  these  latter  gods  largely  replaced  the 
heaven-gods  of  the  Aryans. 

33.  Hall,  0.  C.  G.,  203. 

34.  Farnell,  ii,  620,  v,  9;   Hall,  N.  E.,  59;   id.  O.  C.  G.,  82;   Evans,  /.  H.  S., 
vol.  xxxii,  283;    Graillot,  7. 

35.  Hall,  O.  C.  G.,  203;    Lang,  W.  H.,  141;    Meyer,  i.  2.  769;    Fick,   Vor- 
griechische  Ortsnamen,  129;   Grant,  160. 

36.  Hall,  N.  E.,  59;  Gruppe,  59-61 ;  Fick,  99. 

37.  Hall,  N.  E.,  60  n.  i;   id.  O.  C.  G.,  87-91;    Kretschmer,  372-6;   Fick,  125. 

38.  Hall,  N.  E.,  67,  79;  Lang,  W.  H.,  143-9;  Grant,  160. 

39.  Lang,  W.  H.,  157-60;  Evans,  /.  H.  S.,  vol.  xxxii,  277-87;   Hall,  0.  C.  G., 
203-8;    Campbell,  37-42,  238-42;    Beloch,  i.  i.  144-76;    Meyer,  i.  2.  724-34; 
Burrows,  114-16;   Cotterill,  31,  78-80. 

40.  W.H.,i53. 

41.  Modestov,  252,  254,  et  passim. 

42.  Montelius,  Die  vorklassische  Chronologie  Italiens,  149-56;  Keane,  M.P.P., 
530;   d'Arbois,  Les  premiers  habitants  de  I' Europe,  i,  129;  Mackenzie,  Crete,  247-8. 

43.  Peet,  86,  143,  284;  Myres,  D.  H.,  221. 

44.  Myres,  D.  H.,  233. 

45.  Pinza,  Bullettino  della  commissione  archeologica  comunale  di  Roma,  1900, 
201. 

46.  Modestov,  254.    See  also  Sergi,  179,  244;  Taylor,  204;   Reinach,  Orpheus, 
95;    Myres,  D.  H.,  231. 

47.  Dr.  Piganiol  (93-143)  notes  many  such  cult-practices  among  the  Romans. 

48.  Kretschmer,  154. 


Introduction  17 

49.  Though  Dr.  Warde  Fowler  avoids  discriminating  between  Mediterranean 
and  Aryan  cults,  he  devotes  two  chapters  of  The  Religious  Experience  of  the  Roman 
People  (24-67)  to  what  he  calls  "survivals."    In  discussing  them,  he  frequently 
says  of  some  quaint  or  magical  act  that  it  seenls  un- Roman,  or  that  it  may  have 
been  taken  over  from  an  earlier  people.     He  makes  this  statement  about  the 
Lupercalia  (ibid.  34;  Roman  Festivals,  312).    Dr.  Lippert  (ii,  545)  assigns  all  the 
cults  of  the  mother-goddess  to  the  pre-Romans,  and  those  in  honor  of  Divus 
Pater  to  the  Romans.     Dr.  Piganiol  (93-143,  el  passim)  makes  a  similar  distinc- 
tion, tracing  all  chthonic  cults  to  Mediterranean  inspiration. 

50.  See  page  57.    In  the  following  citations,  Roman  cults  are  said  to  be  similar 
to  Greek  cults,  or  are  derived  from  them:  Saturn,  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  319; 
Faliscan  Juno,  Dionys.,  i.  21.  2;  Juno  Sospita,  Ovid,  Fast.,  2.  55;  the  rite  of  the 
Argei,  Fest.,  334. 

51.  Ethnology  in  Folklore,  71.    Professor  Rhys,  in  his  study  of  Celtic  religion, 
discriminates  in  this  way  between  the  greater  divinities  of  the  Aryan  pantheon 
and  the  numerous  genii  locorum  of  the  pre- Aryan  inhabitants  (Celtic  Heathendom, 
54,  105). 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  CEREMONIAL  OF  THE  LUPERCALIA 

At  the  outset  of  our  study  of  the  Lupercalia  we  need  a  clear 
picture  of  the  ceremonial  acts.  Though  the  Lupercalia  was  very 
frequently  mentioned  by  ancient  writers,  Plutarch  alone  gives  all 
the  details  of  the  ritual.  His  portrayal,  therefore,  will  serve  as  a 
general  survey. 

"The  Lupercalia,"  says  Plutarch,1  "from  the  time  of  its  celebration, 
might  seem  to  be  a  ceremony  of  purification,  for  it  is  performed  in 
the  ill-omened  days  of  the  month  of  February,  a  period  which  any 
one  would  interpret  as  devoted  to  expiation;  furthermore  the  very 
day  of  the  Lupercalia  was  in  olden  times  called  The  Purification. 
But  the  name  of  this  festival  is  the  same  as  Lycaea  in  Greek,  and 
for  this  reason  it  seems  to  be  a  very  ancient  festival  of  the  Arcadian 
immigrants  who  followed  Evander.  But  this  is  merely  the  general 
explanation,  for  the  name,  may  in.  fact,  have  been  derived  from 
the  she-wolf  [of  the  Romulus  legend].  And,  indeed,  we  believe 
that  the  Luperci  begin  their  race  about  the  city  at  the  spot  where, 
they  tell  us,  Romulus  was  exposed.  The  ceremonial,  however, 
makes  the  origin  of  the  rite  hard  to  guess.  For  goats  are  slain, 
then  two  boys  of  noble  rank  are  led  up  to  the  victim,  and  a  sword 
which  has  been  dipped  into  blood  is  pressed  upon  their  foreheads, 
after  which  the  blood  is  immediately  wiped  off  with  a  bit  of  wool 
moistened  in  milk.  The  blood  having  been  removed,  the  lads  must 
laugh.  After  this  [the  Luperci]  cut  the  hides  of  the  goats  into 
strips  and,  naked  except  for  a  girdle,  they  run  about  [the  Palatine], 
striking  with  the  thongs  everyone  whom  they  meet.  The  young 
women  do  not  shun  the  blows,  since  they  believe  that  they  will 
avail  for  the  conception  and  the  easy  delivery  of  children.  A  peculiar 
feature  of  the  festival  is  that  the  Luperci  also  sacrifice  a  dog."2 

In  this  passage  it  is  significant  that  Plutarch  does  not  name  the 
god  in  whose  honor  the  Lupercalia  was  celebrated.  The  Romans, 
in  fact,  associated  many  deities  with  the  Lupercalia:  Lupercus, 
Faunus,  Inuus,  Februus,  and,  more  frequently  than  any  Roman 
god,  Pan,  or  Pan  Lycaeus.3  They  seem,  furthermore,  to  have 
connected  the  festival  with  Juno,  since  the  .strips  with  which  the 


The  Ceremonial  of  the  Lupercalia  19 

Luperci  smote  the  women  were  called  amicula  lunonis.*  Thus 
the  Romans  seem  to  have  had  no  definite  idea  of  the  patron  god 
pf  the  Lupercalia.  To  decide,  if  possible,  what  god  was  originally 
worshipped  at  the  wolf's  cave  will  be  an  important  point  in  our 
study. 

Though  they  knew  so  little  of  the  deity  of  the  Lupercalia,  the 
Romans  had  definite  ideas  about  its  purpose.  Very  frequently 
the  blows  dealt  by  the  Luperci  are  mentioned  as  assuring  to  women 
productivity.  In  later  times  this  idea  of  propagation  was  extended 
also  to  the  crops.5  In  the  minds  of  the  ancients  fertility  was  closely 
related  to  purification,  for  it  was  by  purification  from  evil  powers 
that  the  forces  of  life  became  active.6  Consequently  by  the  time 
of  Varro  the  Lupercalia  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  important 
lustrations  of  the  state.7  The  idea  that  the  Lupercalia  would  keep 
away  misfortune  of  all  sorts,  such  as  pestilence,  barrenness,  famine, 
war,  drought,  hail,  and  tempest,  was  stressed  during  later  years. 
Again  and  again  Pope  Gelasius  chided  the  people  for  attributing 
all  these  disasters  to  the  cessation  of  the  Lupercalia.8  These  inter- 
pretations of  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans  are  essentially  consistent, 
being  merely  different  versions  of  the  same  idea,  for  the  apotropaic 
rite  which  serves  to  banish  evil  or  to  render  it  inactive  results  in 
the  freeing  of  all  beneficent  forces. 

The  Lupercalia  was  probably  founded  even  before  the  Romans 
settled  on  the  Palatine,9  and  it  continued  until  495  A.D.,  when  it 
was  abolished  by  the  edict  of  Pope  Gelasius.10  This  long  existence 
gives  the  natural  explanation  both  of  the  incongruous  ritual  acts 
which  composed  the  ceremonial,  and  of  the  ignorance  of  the  Romans 
concerning  the  presiding  deity.  The  Lupercalia  should  be  studied, 
not  as  the  product  of  a  particular  period,  but  as  a  cult  complex.11 
It  was,  in  a  measure,  an  epitome  of  the  religious  experience  of  the 
Romans,  and,  like  a  vital  organism,  it  developed  now  one  side, 
now  another,  according  to  the  needs  of  a  people  that  passed  from 
the  state  of  simple  shepherds  to  that  of  the  masters  of  the  world. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  II 

1.  Plut.,  Rom.,  21.  31. 

2.  In  addition  to  the  above  cult-features,  there  were  offered  at  the  Lupercalia 
the  mola  salsa,  or  salt  cakes,  which  were  made  by  the  Vestal  Virgins  from  the  first 


2O  The  Lupercalia 

grain  of  the  harvest.  These  cakes  were  also  offered  at  the  Vestalia  and  on  the 
Ides  of  September  (Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Ed.,  8.  82).  This  is  obviously  a  ceremony 
that  is  associated  primarily  with  the  ritual  of  the  Vestal  Virgins  rather  than  with 
the  Lupercalia,  and  an  adequate  explanation  of  it  would  involve  a  survey  of  the 
cult  of  Vesta.  Hence  it  cannot  be  included  in  the  present  study. 

Ovid  (Fast.,  2.  282)  says  that  the  Flamen  Dialis  officiated  at  the  Lupercalia; 
but  Dr.  Fowler  (R.  F.,  313)  points  out  the  impossibility  of  his  having  performed 
the  sacrifice,  since  it  was  unlawful  for  him  to  touch  either  a  goat  or  a  dog.  It  is 
impossible  to  explain  the  presence  of  the  Flamen  Dialis  at  the  Lupercalia  without 
an  examination  of  the  history  and  the  significance  of  that  obscure  minister.  Hence 
that  too,  like  the  offering  of  the  mola  salsa,  lies  outside  the  scope  of  the  present 
study. 

3.  For  the  discussion  of  these  various  deities,  see  pp.  36-8,  82  n.  55. 

4.  See  p.  62. 

5.  Lyd.,  de  Mens.,  4.  25. 

6.  Rohde,  i,  247;  Samter,  Die  Familienfesten  der  Griechen  und  Romer,  12. 

7.  Var.,  L.  L.,  6.  34. 

8.  Gelas.,  adv.  Androm.,  13,  21,  24,  et  al. 
g.  See  pp.  38-9. 

10.  Baronius,  Annal.  Eccles.,  viii,  60  fol. 

11.  This  theory  is  advocated  by   Dr.    Deubner,  Lupercalia,  in  Archiv  fur 
Religionswissenschaft,  vol.  xiii,  1910,  481,  et  passim. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  WOLF-DEITY  IN  GREECE 

In  examining  the  separate  details  of  the  Lupercalia,  the  first 
question  that  arises  is,  "What  did  the  wolf  have  to  do  with  the 
festival?"  An  overwhelming  number  of  scholars  feel  that  the 
names  Lupercal,  Lupercalia,  and  Luperci  are  all  derived  from 
lupus.1  Moreover,  the  cave  of  the  Lupercal  is  too  closely  associated 
with  Rome's  sacred  wolf,  the  foster  mother  of  Romulus  and  Remus, 
for  that  name,  at  least,  to  be  derived  from  anything  but  lupus.  It 
was  at  that  cave  that  the  Luperci  offered  sacrifice,  and  from  there 
they  started  on  their  course  about  the  city.2  Assuming,  conse- 
quently, that  the  wolf  had  some  part  in  the  Lupercalia,  let 
us  consider  the  role  that  the  wolf  played  in  the  religion  of  early 
Greece. 

We  have  evidence  that  the  wolf  was  regarded  as  a  sacred  animal 
among  the  Pelasgians.  Numerous  seals  of  Minoan  Crete  bear  the 
figure  of  a  wolf,3  though  it  had  no  such  important  part  in  Cretan 
cults  as  had  the  snake  and  the  bull.  Yet  a  Mycenaean  seal  portrays 
two  wolves  standing  in  heraldic  fashion  on  each  side  of  a  pillar, 
in  a  position  similar  to  that  of  the  lions  over  Mycenae's  gate.4 
In  view  of  the  sanctity  of  the  pillar  in  Mycenaean  cults,  and  the 
frequent  representation  of  it  with  heraldic  animals,5  the  wolves 
that  stand  on  each  side  of  this  pillar  must  be  accepted  as  sacred. 

Throughout  the  Peloponnesus  the  wolf-god  Lycaeus  was  highly 
venerated.  The  name  Lycaeus  is  generally  accepted  as  meaning 
wolf*  Sometimes  Lycaeus  is  used  alone,  but  more  frequently  it 
becomes  an  epithet  attached  to  the  name  of  one  of  the  more  familiar 
deities,  as  Zeus  Lycaeus,  Pan  Lycaeus,  or  Apollo  Lycaeus.  In 
Arcadia,  above  all  other  places,  the  cult  of  this  god  was  deep-rooted 
and  wide-spread.  There,  on  Mount  Lycaeus,  the  Lycaea  was  held 
in  his  honor  every  nine  years.  On  this  mountain  was  the  city  of 
Lycosura,  the  oldest,  says  Pausanias,  in  all  Greece.7  Both  the 
city  and  the  festival  were  said  to  have  been  founded  by  Lycaon, 
the  son  of  Pelasgus.8  In  this  mythological  fashion  the  Greeks 
expressed  their  belief  that  the  Lycaea  was  a  religious  ceremony 
of  the  Pelasgians.  As  the  Lycaea  was  by  most  ancient  authorities 


22  The  Lupercalia 

regarded  as  the  prototype  of  the  Lupercalia,  it  must  be  carefully 
examined. 

The  god  in  whose  honor  the  Lycaea  was  celebrated  was  a  dread 
and  mysterious  creature.  His  shrine  was  sacrosanct,  and  all  men 
were  forbidden  to  enter  it.  Anyone  who  disregarded  this  prohibition 
would  surely  die,  it  was  believed,  within  the  year.  Consequently 
the  precinct  of  Lycaeus  was  for  animals  a  place  of  refuge,  since  no 
hunter  would  pursue  them  within  its  limits.  The  uncanny  nature 
of  the  shrine  is  shown  by  the  belief  that  within  it  all  creatures 
lost  their  shadows.9  Close  by  the  sanctuary  there  seems  to  have 
been  a  pool  and  an  oak  tree,  where,  in  times  of  drought,  the  priest 
of  Zeus  Lycaeus  was  wont  to  take  a  branch  of  the  oak  tree,  stir 
the  water  with  it,  and  thus  secure  the  desired  rain.10 

Lycaeus  was  for  men  a  destructive  power  to  be  shunned;  but 
he  was  the  protector  of  animals.  He  was  also  the  sender  of  the 
rain.  Since  no  shadow  was  cast  within  his  sanctuary,  his  realm 
seems  to  have  been  beneath  the  earth,  where  the  sun's  rays  might 
not  penetrate.11  In  all  these  elements  we  see  the  characteristic 
features  of  the  earth-god. 

The  Lycaea  had  the  savage  rites  of  many  chthonic  festivals. 
Pausanias  tells  us  that  even  in  his  day  a  child  was  sacrificed,  his 
blood  sprinkled  upon  the  altar,  and  his  entrails  tasted  sacramentally 
by  the  priest.  Thereupon,  say  the  legends,  he  who  had  tasted  of 
the  entrails  was  transformed  into  a  werwolf  for  the  period  of  nine 
years.12  One  account  tells  of  a  certain  Demaenetus  who,  having 
partaken  of  the  sacrifice  and  been  changed  into  a  wolf,  swam  across 
a  pool  (probably  the  one  near  the  shrine  of  Lycaeus),  and  entered 
upon  his  nine-year  exile.  At  the  end  of  that  time  he  was  restored 
to  human  form  and  returned  to  Mount  Lycaeus.13 

The  sacrifice  at  the  Lycaea  was  evidently  of  the  expiatory  type, 
the  child  being  offered  to  appease  the  savage  wolf-god  and  to  divert 
his  malignant  power  from  the  people.  This  is  an  especially  common 
type  of  human  sacrifice,  and  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  cults  of 
chthonic  deities.14  In  ceremonies  of  this  sort,  the  whole  or  a  part 
of  the  victim  is  sometimes  eaten,  the  idea  being  that,  having  been 
offered  to  the  god,  it  partakes  of  his  divinity;  and  so  the  priest, 
upon  eating  the  victim,  secures  this  magic  power  for  himself.15 
Yet,  because  the  sacrifice  is,  in  a  measure,  identified  with  the  god, 
it  becomes  a  sin  to  slay  it  and  to  eat  of  its  flesh,  even  though  those 


The  Wolf -Deity  in  Greece  23 

acts  are  necessary  for  the  welfare  of  the  people.  Consequently 
the  slayer  seeks  by  flight  to  escape  the  result  of  his  sacrilege.16 
Often  he  must  undergo  some  lustral  experience. 

These  ideas  appear  in  other  Greek  rites.  Every  ninth  year,  at 
Delphi,  occurred  a  ceremony  known  as  the  Stepteria,  which  was 
supposed  to  commemorate  Apollo's  slaughter  of  the  Python  and 
his  consequent  exile.  A  hut  was  built  which  represented  the  abode 
of  the  Python.  A  boy,  escorted  by  other  boys,  set  fire  to  this  hut; 
then  they  all  fled  without  looking  back,  and  the  leader  pretended 
to  go  into  exile.  Later  they  went  to  Tempe,  were  purified,  and  on 
their  way  home  partook  of  a  feast.17  Another  curious  rite,  known 
as  the  Bouphonia,  was  performed  at  Athens.  At  the  sacrifice  of  an 
ox,  one  man  felled  the  ox  with  an  axe  and  immediately  fled.  Another 
man  cut  the  throat  of  the  ox  with  a  knife  and,  it  seems,  also  fled. 
Later  a  formal  trial  was  held  to  discover  who  was  guilty  of  the 
murder  of  the  ox.  Each  of  the  participants  in  the  sacrifice  blamed 
someone  else,  until,  finally,  the  axe  and  the  knife  were  pronounced 
guilty  and  thrown  into  the  sea.18  Likewise,  at  Tenedos  a  newborn 
calf,  having  been  treated  as  a  baby,  was  sacrificed;  the  man  who 
killed  it  was  pelted  with  stones,  and  finally  fled  into  the  sea.19 
Though  these  rites  differ  in  detail,  they  have  the  same  basic  idea 
as  the  Lycaea:  a  holy  victim  has  been  slain,  and  the  slayer  flees 
from  the  scene  of  his  crime  and  undergoes  some  form  of  penalty. 

In  the  Lycaea  this  idea  has  become  mingled  with  another,  as 
so  often  happens  in  early  rites.  The  worshipper  by  partaking  of 
the  fare  of  the  wolf  Lycaeus  is  to  some  extent  assimilated  to  the 
nature  of  the  god,20  that  is,  he  becomes  "wolfish".  In  time  this 
idea  passed  naturally  enough  into  the  belief  that  he  became  a 
werwolf.  Furthermore,  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  priests 
honored  their  deity  by  disguising  themselves  as  wolves.21  This 
would  have  been  in  accord  with  the  numerous  animal  disguises 
pictured  on  Cretan  seals.22  Such  a  practice  would  aid  in  the  devel- 
opment of  the  werwolf  legend. 

The  deity  of  the  Lycaea  is  usually  given  as  Zeus  Lycaeus,  but 
Varro  and  Isidorus  name  him  "Lycaeus,  the  especial  god  of  the 
Arcadians."23  This  recognition  of  Lycaeus  as  the  original  deity 
of  the  festival  is  certainly  right.  The  ceremony  is  far  removed 
from  the  seemly  homage  paid  to  the  Olympian  Zeus.  The  Lycaean 
Zeus  is  a  composite  of  the  Hellenic  sky-god  superimposed  upon  the 


24  The  Lupercalia 

wolf-shaped  spirit  of  Mount  Lycaeus.24  Zeus,  as  usual,  usurped  the 
place  of  honor,  and  the  name  of  Lycaeus  was  reduced  to  a  mere 
appellative.  But  in  all  except  the  name  Lycaeus  remained  un- 
changed ;  he  was  still  the  wolf-god,  demanding  his  tribute  of  human 
flesh.  Of  the  struggle  that  ensued  between  the  rival  cults  of  Zeus 
and  of  Lycaeus,  legend  gives  us  a  clear  picture:  the  sons  of  Lycaon, 
desiring  to  propitiate  Zeus,  sacrificed  to  him  a  child  and  served 
the  entrails  to  his  priest;  but  Zeus  in  wrath  destroyed  by  lightning 
Lycaon  and  all  his  sons  except  the  youngest.25  This  myth  expresses 
the  horror  which  the  Hellenes  had  for  a  barbarous  rite.  They 
strove  to  abolish  it,  but  the  lightnings  of  Zeus  had  only  temporary 
power.  Ultimately  the  older  cult  prevailed,  and  Zeus  accepted 
the  strange  sacrifice  offered  to  him. 

Pan,  another  Arcadian  god,  also  became  associated  with  Lycaeus. 
This  seems  to  have  been  nothing  more  than  the  natural  union  of 
two  deities  worshipped  in  the  same  locality,  for  Pan,  too,  had  his 
shrine  and  sacred  grove  on  Mount  Lycaeus.26  By  later  writers, 
especially  among  the  Romans,  Zeus  Lycaeus  was  almost  wholly 
displaced  by  Pan  Lycaeus.  This  was  not  strange.  The  wolf- 
god  was  in  time  obscured,  and  his  name  became  merely  an  adjec- 
tive. Ancient  scholars,  when  trying  to  explain  that  name,  inter- 
preted it  as  "he  who  keeps  the  wolves  from  the  herds".27  This 
title  was  meaningless  when  applied  to  Zeus,  but  expressed  a  very 
natural  part  of  Pan's  functions.  Thus  in  time,  though  thoughtful 
students  like  Varro,  Pliny,  or  Pausanias  knew  that  the  Lycaea 
was  in  honor  of  Lycaeus  or  Zeus  Lycaeus,  less  critical  ones  attributed 
it  to  Pan  Lycaeus.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  writers  of  the  Empire 
regarded  Pan  Lycaeus  as  the  god  of  the  Lupercalia,  it  is  important 
to  understand  him  as  merely  the  poetic  equivalent  of  Zeus  Lycaeus. 

In  other  parts  of  Hellas,  Lycaeus  was  absorbed  by  Apollo.  The 
Pelasgian  city  of  Argos28  venerated  its  shrine  of  Apollo  Lycaeus 
as  the  most  ancient  and  most  noteworthy  of  all,29  and  stamped  its 
coins  with  the  image  of  Apollo  Lycaeus.30  There,  we  are  told,  a 
wolf  was  sacrificed  to  Apollo  "the  wolf  slayer".31  Porphyrius 
seems  to  indicate  that  at  times  a  wolf  was  eaten  sacramen tally ; 
for  he  cites  various  animals  sacred  to  different  deities,  among  them, 
the  wolf  to  Apollo  Lycaeus.  Then  he  goes  on :  "And  when  persons 
sacrifice  and  eat  these  animals,  they  give  a  foolish  reason".32  Very 
rarely  do  we  hear  of  a  wild  animal  being  sacrificed  in  Greece.33 


The  Wolf -Deity  in  Greece  25 

It  is  often  interpreted  as  a  relic  of  totemism,  the  animal  embodiment 
of  the  god  being  sacrificed  as  the  god's  most  acceptable  victim,  and 
being  eaten  sacramentally  by  the  worshippers.34 

In  Athens  traces  of  the  wolf's  sacred  character  remained  in  the 
law  that  anyone  who  killed  a  wolf  must  erect  at  his  own  expense 
a  tomb  in  its  honor.35  There  was  also  a  cult  of  Apollo  Lycaeus 
and  a  priest  devoted  to  his  service.36  His  abode  was  the  cave  at 
the  foot  of  the  Acropolis;  and  it  continued  in  the  historical  period 
to  be  sacred  to  Apollo.37  In  time  the  sacred  wolf  seems  to  have 
been  reduced  to  a  local  hero,  Lycus,  whose  statue  was  of  wolf- 
form.38  It  is  easy  to  trace  in  this  material  the  development  of 
religious  belief.  First,  the  deity  was  pure  wolf,  Lycaeus;  then, 
grafted  upon  the  Olympian  god,  he  became  Apollo  Lycaeus;  ulti- 
mately legend  explained  the  honor  shown  to  the  wolf  by  creating 
a  hero,  Lycus. 

At  Delphi  one  of  the  months  was  named  Lycaeus;39  and  close 
by  Apollo's  altar  stood  a  great  bronze  statue  of  a  wolf,  which  was 
said  to  have  saved  the  temple  treasures  from  a  thief.40  The  wolf 
was  not  a  strange  figure  at  an  oracle;  in  other  places,  too,  it  was 
believed  to  have  oracular  power.41 

In  Asia  Minor  and  on  the  Aegean  islands  we  find  survivals  of 
Apollo,  the  wolf-god.  Lycia,  whose  name  is  believed  to  have  been 
derived  from  Lycaeus ,42  was  the  center  of  the  worship,  and  there 
Apollo  kept  his  primitive  wolf-form.43  Later  he  was  regarded  as 
the  god  who  drove  away  the  wolves,  and  his  shrine  in  Lycia  gained 
great  fame  on  this  account.44  In  Tarsus  coins  similar  to  the  My- 
cenaean seal  mentioned  above45  portrayed  Apollo  standing  between 
two  wolves  and  hoWing  their  paws  in  his  hands.46  Latona,  when 
fleeing  from  Juno,  was  guided  by  wolves  to  Lycia,  or  to  Delos,  and, 
to  escape  detection,  she  herself  assumed  the  form  ol  a  wolf.47  In 
Crete  Apollo  on  various  occasions  disguised  himself  as  a  wolf.48 
There  he  employed  wolves  to  protect  and  feed  his  infant  son  Miletus, 
who  had  been  exposed  in  the  woods.49  This  story  offers  a  close 
parallel  to  the  tale  of  the  wolf-nurse  of  Romulus  and  Remus. 

In  the  majority  of  cases  Lycaeus,  when  absorbed  by  one  of  the 
higher  gods,  became  kindly  and  gracious.  A  legend  of  Temesa 
in  Southern  Italy  shows  him  in  his  true  character.  A  drunken 
sailor  of  Ulysses,  the  story  runs,  had  ravished  a  maiden  of  Temesa, 
and  was  in  punishment  stoned  to  death  by  the  people.  He  became 


26  The  Lupercalia 

a  vengeful  ghost,  preying  upon  the  inhabitants  of  that  place.  They 
appealed  to  the  Pythian  oracle,  and  were  directed  to  appease  the 
creature  by  giving  him  every  year  the  fairest  maiden  of  Temesa  for 
his  wife.  But  one  year  the  maiden  to  be  sacrificed  had  a  lover 
who  fought  with  the  ghost,  and  drove  him  into  the  sea.  In  an 
old  painting  this  ghost,  named  Lycas,  is  portrayed  as  black  and 
wearing  a  wolf-skin.50  In  this  tale  the  wolf-god  is  frankly  a  creature 
of  the  underworld,  who  devours  men  as  his  prey. 

The  same  conception  appears  in  a  legend  of  Apollo  Lycaeus 
which  is  told  by  Phlegon.51  A  Roman  commander  at  Naupactus 
prophesied  that  he  would  be  devoured  by  a  red  wolf,  and  bade 
his  followers  offer  the  beast  no  resistance.  The  wolf  came  and 
devoured  the  Roman,  leaving  only  his  head.  When  the  people 
approached  to  bury  it,  the  head  forbade  them  to  touch  it,  saying 
that  Apollo  through  the  wolf,  his  minister,  had  led  the  dead  man 
to  the  seats  of  the  blessed.  Thereupon  the  people  erected  a  shrine 
to  Apollo  Lycaeus.  Though  this  tale  is  late,  Dr.  Reinach  believes 
that  it  reflects  very  ancient  beliefs.  The  wolf,  he  says,  typifies 
death;  he  was  a  power  that  none  might  withstand,  hence  the 
command  of  the  Roman  to  his  soldiers  that  they  witness  his  death 
in  passive  acquiescence.52  It  is  in  accord  with  this  interpretation 
that  Hades  appeared  at  times  clad  in  a  wolf-skin,53  which  indicates 
that  he  was  once  thought  of  as  wolf -shaped.54 

The  cult  of  the  wolf-god  in  Greece  had  its  oldest  centers  in 
regions  whose  Pelasgian  stock  mingled  but  slightly  with  the  Aryans,, 
that  is,  Arcadia  and  Lycia.  In  other  places  that  held  tenaciously 
to  their  earth-cults,  as  Argos,  Attica,  and  Delphi,  the  wolf-god 
remained,  though  he  was  often  modified  or  absorbed  by  an  Olym- 
pian god.  Sometimes  he  was  reduced  to  the  wolf-formed  spirit 
that  kept  the  wolves  from  the  fold.  But  in  more  primitive  times 
the  wolf,  prowling  in  darkness  and  preying  upon  men  and  cattle, 
was  an  embodiment  of  the  destructive  power  of  the  earth.  His 
worship,  therefore,  arose  largely  from  fear;  and  sacrifices  were 
offered  to  him  in  order  to  appease  him,  that  he  might  not  slay  the 
people.  Thus  he  was  a  characteristic  earth-god  of  the  Pelasgians. 


The  Wolf -Deity  in  Greece  27 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  III 

1.  See  pp.  36-7,  ,  45  n.    63,64;    46  n.  69. 

2.  Var.,  L,  L.,  5.  85;  Serv.  ad  Verg..  Aen.,  8.  343. 

3.  Evans,  Scr.  Min.,  209. 

4.  Farnell,  iv,  116  n.  6. 

5.  Evans,  7.  H.  S.,  vol.  xxi,  153-63. 

6.  Farnell,  iv,  113;  Wernicke,  in  Pauly-Wisscwa,  ii,  59. 

7.  Paus.,  8.  2.  i;   8.  38.  I. 

8.  Paus.,  8.  2.  i. 

9.  Paus.,  8.  38.  6;   Polyb.,  16.  12.  7;  Schol.  ad  Callim.,  Hym.  in  lov.,  13. 

10.  Paus.,  8.  38.  4;  Aug.,  de  Civ.  Dei,  18.  17. 

11.  Immerwahr,  Die  Kulte  und  Mythen  Arkadiens,  18;   Pick,  132. 

12.  Paus.,  8.  2.  3,  6;  8.  37.  8;   Plat.,  de  Rep.,  565^;  id.  Minos,  315;  Theophr. 
ap.  Porphyr.,  de  Abst.,  2.  27. 

13.  Plin.,  N.  H.,  8.  82;  Aug.,  de  Civ.  Dei,  18.  17. 

14.  These  statements  are  based  upon  the  analysis  of  human  sacrifice  made  by 
Dr.  Westermarck,  i,  65-70,  437-72. 

15.  Westermarck,  i,  63,  ii,  562-4. 

16.  Farnell,  iii,  93;   Harrison,  in  n.  i,  112-14. 

17.  Plut.  de  Defect.  Orac.,  14;  Ael.  Var.  Hist.,  3.  i.   See  also  Harrison,  113-14. 

18.  Porphyr.  de  Abst.,  2.  29  fol.;    Ael.,  Var.  Hist.,  8.  3.    See  also  Smith,  The 
Religion  of  the  Semites,  304-6;    Harrison,  in. 

19.  Ael.,  N.  A.,  12.  34. 

20.  Nilsson,  Griechische  Fesle,  10. 

21.  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough,  iv,  83;  Reinach,  Cultes,  ii,  211. 

22.  See  p.  6. 

23.  Var.  ap.  Aug.,  de  Civ.  Dei,  18.  17;   Isid.  Orig.,  8.  9.  5. 

24.  Klausen,  Aeneas  und  die  Penaten,  ii,   1232.     For  a  full  survey  of  Zeus 
Lycaeus,  see  A.  B.  Cook,  Zeus,  63-99;   Immerwahr,  1-24. 

25.  Apollod.,  Bibl.,  3.  8.  i. 

26.  For  the  character  and  history  of  Pan,  see  p.  49. 

27.  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  343. 

28.  Smith,  Dictionary  of  Geography,  i,  202. 

29.  Paus.,  2.  19.  3;  Schol.  ad  Soph.,  Elec.,  6. 

30.  C.  I.  G.,  i.  1119.  2. 

31.  Schol.  ad  Soph.,  Elec.,  6. 

32.  Porphyr.,  de  Abst.,  3.  17. 

33.  At  Brauron  a  bear  was  sacrificed  to  Artemis  (Schol.  ad  Aristoph.,  Lysist., 
645).    At  Patrae  in  honor  of  Artemis  Laphria  wild  animals  of  many  kinds  were 
cast  alive  upon  the  altar  fire  (Paus.,  7.  18.  12). 

34.'  This  is  the  view  of  Dr.  Frazer,  (viii,  310-12)  and  of  Dr.  Farnell  (i,  41).  The 
limited  compass  of  the  present  study  makes  it  necessary  to  omit  any  consideration 
of  the  vexed  question  of  totemism,  inasmuch  as  it  was  possible  for  the  wolf  to 
be  worshipped  as  a  god  without  its  being  a  totem  animal  (Farnell,  in  Year's 
Work  in  Classical  Stiidies,  1908,  71). 

35.    Schol.  ad  Ap.  Rhod.,  2.  124. 


28  The  Lupercalia 

36.  Ath.  Mitth.,  1901,  213;   C.  I.  A.,  iii.  i.  292. 

37.  Eur.,  Ion,  i.o. 

38.  Paus.,  i.  19.  3;  Aristoph.,  Vesp.,  389. 

39.  Bull.  Hell.,  v,  1 88 1,  429.  5,  Inscr.  43. 

40.  Paus.,  10.  14.  7;   Plut.,  Perjcl.,  21;  Ael.,  H.  A.,  10.  26. 

41.  Farnell,  iv,  117;   Furtwangler,  in  Roscher,  i,  443. 

42.  Farnell,  iv,  112. 

43.  Bode,  Scriptores  rerum  mythicarum,  Cellis  1834,  iii,  16,  page  209. 

44.  Paul.  ex.  Fest.,  119. 

45.  See  p.  21. 

46.  Farnell,  iv,  309. 

47.  Ael.,  H.  A.,  10.  26;  Aristot.,  Hist.  Anim.,  6.  35;  Ap.  Rhod.,  2.  124;  Anton. 
Liber.,  35. 

48.  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  4.  377. 

49.  Anton.  Liber.,  30. 

50.  Paus:,  6.  6.  7-11;  Strab.,  6.  i.  5. 

51.  Mirab.  ch.  3. 

52.  Reinach,  Cultes,  i,  296  n.  4. 

53.  In  the  tomb-paintings  of  Etruria,  Hades  wears  a  wolf-skin  helmet  (Cook, 
Zeus,  Fig.  72,  73). 

54.  Reinach,  Cultes,  i,  295. 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  WOLF-DEITY  IN  ITALY 

The  wolf-cults  of  Italy  present  the  appearance  of  a  religious 
survival  from  a  remote  time.  Of  an  actual  wolf-god,  we  find  far 
fewer  manifestations  than  in  Greece.  Yet  in  the  realm  of  magic, 
augury,  and  popular  superstition,  the  wolf  was  more  conspicuous 
and  more  highly  venerated  in  Italy  than  was  any  other  animal.1 
Since  an  outgrown  religion  regularly  lingers,  often  through  many 
centuries,  as  a  superstition  or  a  magic  'practice,  the  widespread 
belief  in  the  uncanny  power  of  wolves  indicates  that  at  some  time 
the  wolf  was  important  in  Italian  religion.  The  actual  cults  con- 
nected with  the  wolf  are  those  of  the  obscure  deity  Soranus,  of 
Mars,  and  of  the  little-known  Lupercus  or  Luperca,  who  was  named 
by  some  ancient  scholars  as  the  deity  of  the  Lupercalia.2  In  study- 
ing these  wolf-cults,  we  shall  seek  to  learn  whether  they  originated 
among  the  Ligurians  or  the  Aryans  of  Italy,  and  whether  the 
ceremonial  acts  were  similar  to  those  performed  in  Greece  in  honor 
of  the  chthonic  wolf,  or  akin  to  the  rites  of  Olympian  gods.  That 
will  give  us  a  basis  to  interpret  the  ritual  of  the  Lupercalia. 

Near  Rome,  in  the  country  of  the  Faliscans,  was  a  wolf-cult  that 
was  associated  with  Soranus,  the  god  of  Mount  Soracte.  The 
ritual  combined  the  features  of  a  fire-cult  and  a  wolf-cult.  Every 
year  the  priests  performed  a  rite  in  which  they  walked  through 
blazing  coals,  and  yet  were  not  burned.3  Fire-cults  were  rare  in 
the  religion  of  either  the  Greeks  or  the  Romans.  This  particular 
one  seems  the  natural  product  of  the  location,  for  the  land  of  the 
Faliscans  was  volcanic,  with  numerous  chasms  whence  issued 
pestiferous  fumes.4  In  this  region,  consequently,  fire  was  the  prime 
manifestation  of  the  earth-spirit.  Hephaistus,  too,  the  product 
of  like  forces,  was  a  chthonic  god,  embodying  the  subterranean 
fire.5  The  wolf-element  of  the  cult  appears  in  the  name  of  the 
priests,  Hirpi  Sorani,  hirpi  being  the  Sabine  name  for  wolves.  It 
appears  also  in  the  following  legend:6  At  one  time  when  the  Hirpi 
were  sacrificing,  wolves  suddenly  appeared  and  snatched  from  the 
fire  the  entrails  of  the  sacrifice.  Shepherds  pursued  the  wolves 
to  a  cave,  from  which  were  emitted  such  deadly  fumes  that  those 


3O  The  Lupercalia 

standing  near  were  killed.  A  pestilence  followed  because  the 
wolves  had  been  molested.  This  could  be  allayed,  the  Hirpi  learned 
from  an  oracle,  if  they  would  imitate  the  wolves.  This  imitation 
of  the  wolves  Servius  interpreted  as  rapto  vivere.6  But  aetiological 
myths  like  this  one  regularly  try  to  explain  the  details  of  the  cere- 
mony. Thus  the  story  indicates  that  the  Hirpi,  in  imitation  of 
wolves,  put  on  wolf-skins  as  a  ceremonial  garb,7  devoured  the 
entrails  of  the  victim,  and  then  took  to  flight  with  the  people  in 
pursuit.  The  rite  shows,  therefore,  strong  similarity  to  the  Lycaea:8 
in  each  festival  the  priests,  perhaps  clad  in  wolf-skins,  partook 
ceremonially  of  the  sacrificial  victim,  and  then  fled  to  escape  pollu- 
tion for  their  sacrilege;  each  band  of  priests  underwent  an  expiatory 
experience,  in  the  one  case  through  exile,  in  the  other  through 
flight  and  through  breathing  the  fumes  from  the  cavern. 

The  spirit  of  Mount  Soracte  was,  perhaps,  wolf-shaped,  and 
manifested  himself  in  volcanic  fire  and  pestilential  vapors.  His 
power  expressed,  not  the  beneficent,  but  the  destructive,  activity 
of  the  earth :  he  was  a  death-god.9  His  name,  meaning  "the  god 
of  Soracte,"  was  derived  from  the  mountain  that  he  inhabited, 
and  was  in  later  times  felt  to  be  nothing  more  than  a  vague  descrip- 
tion. Some  ancient  scholars,  therefore,  identified  him  with  Apollo,10 
to  whom  also  the  wolf  was  sacred.  Servius,  understanding  the 
true  nature  of  Soranus,  said  that  he  was  also  called  Dis,  since 
Mount  Soracte  was  consecrated  to  the  Di  Manes.11 

The  Hirpi  Sorani  were  a  very  small  group  of  families  living  about 
Mount  Soracte.12  Such  veneration  attached  to  their  sacred  function 
that  they  were  freed  by  decree  of  the  senate  from  all  military  or 
other  service.12  The  view  of  some  authorities,  that  the  Hirpi  were 
Sabines,13  seems  to  me  most  improbable.  Mount  Soracte  was 
located  in  the  land  of  the  Faliscans;  and  the  cult  was  obviously 
a  product  of  the  mountain,  wolf-infested,  and  expressing  the  deadly 
power  of  the  underworld  by  volcanic  fire  and  by  noxious  exhalations. 
Such  a  cult  surely  could  not  have  been  imported.  Nor  is  it  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  the  Sabines,  some  of  whom  settled  among  the 
Faliscans,14  developed  the  cult  after  their  arrival.  The  worship 
of  Soranus  has  all  the  marks  of  hoar  antiquity;  it  is  intensely 
local,  and  appears  in  no  other  region  of  Italy.  Contrasted  with 
these  reasons  against  supposing  that  Soranus  was  a  Sabine  god, 
we  have  on  the  positive  side  only  the  fact  that  hirpus  was  the 


The  Wolf -Deity  in  Italy  31 

Sabine  name  for  wolf.15  No  one  states  that  Sabines  were  the  wor- 
shippers.16 That  a  Sabine  name  should  have  become  attached 
to  the  priests  of  Soranus  is  wholly  natural.  Just  as  the  Sabines 
introduced  many  of  their  words  into  the  Latin  language,  so  the 
Sabine  settlers  near  Falerii  may  well  have  given  their  own  name 
to  the  priests  of  Soranus. 

It  is  likewise  improbable  that  the  Hirpi  Sorani  were  Faliscans. 
The  statement  that  they  were  a  very  few  families  living  in  the  land 
of  the  Faliscans12  certainly  indicates  that  they  were  a  separate 
group.  Their  meager  numbers  are  strongly  suggestive  of  an  earlier 
people,  who,  in  the  fastness  of  their  mountain,  kept  their  individu- 
ality and  their  peculiar  religion.  Archaeology  proves  that  the 
neighborhood  of  Falerii  was  occupied  during  the  Neolithic  Age.17 
It  also  supports  the  assumption  that  these  neolithic  folk,  or  Ligu- 
rians,  continued  in  their  old  home  after  the  coming  of  the  Aryans, 
for  both  cremation-urns  and  inhumation-graves  have  been  found 
about  Falerii;  and  they  seem  to  be  contemporaneous.18  Legends 
of  Falerii  tell  that  it  was  occupied  successively  by  Siculi,  by  Argives, 
by  Faliscans,  who  were  closely  related  to  the  Romans,  and  by 
Sabines.19  Dionysius  commented  upon  the  traces  of  Pelasgian 
origin  that  persisted  in  Falerii  in  his  own  day.20 

Therefore  we  may  conclude  that  the  god  of  Mount  Soracte 
was  a  chthonic  deity  of  the  Mediterranean  people.  He  was  similar 
to  Zeus  Lycaeus,  being  embodied  in  a  wolf,  and  being  a  merciless 
god  of  destruction. 

Another  wolf-cult  of  Falerii  is  of  more  immediate  interest  in 
our  study  of  the  Lupercalia,  for  the  goddess,  or  priestess,  of  the 
cult  was  named  Valeria  Luperca.  We  hear  of  it  through  only  one 
writer,  though  it  continued  until  a  late  date.  At  one  time,  the 
legend  runs,21  a  fearful  pestilence  fell  upon  the  Faliscans.  An 
oracle  told  them  that  the  plague  would  be  stayed  if  they  should 
sacrifice  every  year  a  maiden  to  Juno.  Accordingly  a  girl  named 
Valeria  Luperca  was  chosen  as  the  victim.  But  when  the  sword 
was  drawn,  an  eagle,  swooping  down,  seized  it  and  thrust  it  into 
a  cow  that  was  grazing  near;  then  placed  upon  the  altar  a  small 
hammer.  This  was  taken  up  by  the  maiden,  who  went  to  each 
of  the  sick,  touched  him  with  it,  and  bade  him  be  healed. 

This  story  suggests  the  legend  of  Iphigenia,  in  its  main  situation 
of  a  maiden  who,  when  about  to  be  sacrificed,  was  saved  by  the 


32  The  Lupercalia 

substitution  of  an  animal  victim.  Iphigenia  is  usually  interpreted 
as  a  cult-title  of  Artemis,  or  as  an  early  goddess  who  was  later 
identified  with  Artemis.22  The  story  of  her  escape  from  death 
seems  a  recollection  of  the  time  when  human  sacrifice  was  abolished 
and  an  animal  substituted.  The  same  explanation  is  a  natural 
one  for  the  story  of  Valeria  Luperca.  Just  as  Iphigenia  was  later 
replaced  by  Artemis  and  reduced  to  a  priestess,  so  Valeria  Luperca 
was  subordinated  to  Juno.  Nowhere  else  do  we  hear  of  a  human 
victim  being  offered  to  Juno;  therefore  we  can  hardly  believe  that 
she  was  the  original  deity  honored  in  this  ceremony.  The  goddess 
Luperca,  however,  whose  name  is  most  reasonably  derived  from 
lupa,  a  wolf,23  would,  like  the  wolf-gods  of  Greece,  very  naturally 
have  been  honored  by  a  human  sacrifice.  The  rite  evidently  ante- 
dated the  coming  of  the  terramara  folk,  for  the  maiden  was  saved 
by  an  eagle,  the  bird  of  the  Romans.  The  legend  indicates,  there- 
fore, a  barbarous  rite  that  was  ended  by  the  northern  immigrants. 

The  importance  of  the  hammer  in  the  legend  leads  us,  as  does 
the  name  of  the  priestess,  to  the  Valerii,  a  gens  who  lived  near 
the  Faliscans,  for  they  adopted  Acisculus  as  a  cognomen,  and 
employed  the  emblem  of  the  hammer  on  many  of  their  coins.24 
This  sacred  hammer  reminds  us  of  the  weapon-cult  which  was 
prominent  in  the  religion  of  Minoan  Crete,25  thus  strengthening 
the  view  that  Valeria  Luperca  was  a  goddess  of  the  Ligurians. 

We  may  reconstruct  the  legend  as  follows.  Luperca  was  a  local 
goddess  of  the  Ligurians  living  near  Falerii.  The  Valerian  gens 
took  over  her  cult,  but  abolished  the  practice  of  human  sacrifice. 
Henceforth  the  goddess  was  known  as  Valeria  Luperca.26  In  time 
this  local  deity  was  absorbed  by  Juno;  and  only  an  obscure  legend 
and  the  sacred  hammer  which  was  the  emblem  of  the  Valerii  showed 
that  she  had  ever  existed. 

That  the  wolf  was  known  throughout  Italy  as  the  sacred  animal 
of  Mars  is  a  literary  commonplace  that  needs  no  amplification  here. 
Since  the  name  of  Mars,  which  comes  from  the  Indo-European 
root  mar-,  meaning  brightness™  appears  in  many  of  the  Italic 
dialects,  and  since  the  worship  of  Mars  was  important  in  all  the 
lands  occupied  by  the  Aryan  invaders,28  Mars  is  generally  accepted 
as  the  chief  god  whom  the  terramara  folk  brought  with  them  into 
Italy.29  Yet  there  is  much  in  the  ancient  cults  and  the  character 
of  Mars  that  is  like  the  Mediterranean  nature-spirits  rather  than 


The  Wolf-Deity  in  Italy  33 

the  Aryan  gods.  The  importance  of  Mars  in  lustral  and  agrarian 
rites,  especially  those  of  the  spring,  and  his  association  with  the 
ancient  Dea  Dia,  leads  Roscher,  who  has  made  the  most  exhaustive 
examination  of  the  cults  of  Mars,30  to  conclude  that  Mars  was 
a  god  of  spring  and  summer  who  was  closely  connected  with  the 
crops,  the  cattle,  health,  and  sickness.  Dr.  Fowler,  who  accepts 
the  conclusions  of  Roscher,  says  of  the  month  that  was  named  for 
Mars:  "Some  great  numen  is  at  work,  quickening  vegetation,  and 
calling  into  life  the  powers  of  reproduction  in  man  and  the  animals. 
...  It  was  this  Power,  we  can  hardly  doubt,  that  the  Latins  knew 
by  the  name  of  Mars,  the  god  whose  cult  is  so  prominent  throughout 
the  critical  period  of  the  quickening  processes."31  Such  a  god  corres- 
ponds in  all  respects  to  the  earth-god  of  the  Mediterranean  race. 

As  a  result,  we  must  believe  that  the  Mars  of  historical  times  was 
a  composite  deity,  the  Aryan  god  having  absorbed  much  of  the 
nature  and  the  ritual  of  the  Mediterranean  deities  who  were  already 
in  possession  of  the  land.  This  fusion  is  shown  in  the  case  of  two 
local  deities  of  Liguria  who  are  called  respectively  Cemenelus  or 
Mars  Cemenelus,32  and  Mars  Leucimalacus.33  In  like  manner  it 
is  reasonable  to  believe,  though  impossible  to  prove,  that  Mars 
absorbed  a  wolf-deity  of  the  Ligurians,  and  that  the  wolf  was  in 
time  reduced  to  his  attendant  animal.  In  association  with  Mars, 
the  wolf  lost  much  of  his  savage  character,  and  became  a  helpful 
animal  that  guided  colonists  on  their  way,34  and  rescued  Romulus 
and  Remus,  the  infant  sons  of  Mars.35  Just  so,  when  associated 
with  Apollo,  did  Lycaeus  grow  gentle. 

We  come  now  to  the  main  point  of  this  investigation,  the  part 
of  the  wolf  in  the  Lupercalia.  Was  there  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Rome  before  the  arrival  of  the  terramara  invaders  a  Ligurian  popu- 
lace who  might  have  been  the  authors  of  a  wolf-cult?  Archaeology, 
unfortunately,  gives  us  only  meager  help  in  this  problem.  The  hills 
of  Rome  have  been  densely  populated  for  so  long  a  time  that  it  is 
very  difficult  to  find  any  remains  that  unquestionably  date  back 
even  to  the  regal  period.36  We  do  know,  however,  that  the  imme- 
diate neighborhood  was  inhabited  from  remote  times;  for  in  the 
gravels  of  the  Tiber  and  the  Anio  have  been  found  flints  belonging 
to  the  Palaeolithic  Age.37  Even  as  close  to  Rome  as  the  Mulvian 
Bridge  was  found  a  rich  collection  of  very  early  stone  implements, 
together  with  bones  of  extinct  animals.38  But  in  the  types  of  tombs 


34  The  Lupercalia 

found  in  Rome  itself  we  have  the  clearest  evidence.  In  the  ancient 
cemeteries  on  the  Esquiline  and  in  the  Forum,  inhumation  was  the 
more  common  form  of  burial,  and  the  skulls  found  in  these  graves 
were  dominantly  dolichocephalic.39 

Many  traditions  tell  that  before  the  arrival  of  the  Romans  there 
were  persons  living  upon  the  site  of  Rome.40  These  settlers  are 
known  as  Ligurians,  Siculi,  or  Pelasgians;  Dionysius  designates 
them  as  autochthonous,  and  says. that  not  a  few  traces  of  them 
continued  there  even  in  his  time.41  Testifying  to  the  truth  of  these 
traditions  are  various  ancient  shrines.  On  the  lower  slope  of  the 
Cermalus  there  was,  close  by  the  Lupercal,  the  sacred  fig-tree, 
an  emblem  of  Rumina,  goddess  of  fecundity;42  and,  at  the  foot 
of  the  hill  in  the  Velabrum,  the  shrine,  or  tomb,  of  Acca  Larentia, 
which  was  the  seat  of  an  ancient  grave-cult.43  On  the  Aventine 
were  places  sacred  to  Bona  Dea,  Faunus,  Picus,  and  Evander; 
and,  at  the  foot  of  the  hill,  the  shrines  of  Murcia,  Heracles,  and 
Consus.44  Cacus  was  localized  both  on  the  Aventine  and  on  the 
Palatine.45  On  the  Capitoline  were  the  grave  of  Tarpeia,46  the 
altar  to  Saturnus,47  and,  near  the  foot,  the  shrine  to  Carmenta.48 
All  these  deities  and  their  cults  were  distinctly  chthonic.  The  gods 
presided  over  fertility,  prophecy,  or  death,  and  all,  according  to 
the  legends,  antedated  the  founding  of  Rome. 

From  this  evidence  of  archaeology,  of  legend,  and  of  cult,  we 
are  justified  in  believing  that  when  the  Romans  settled  on  the 
Palatine  they  found  the  Ligurians  already  established  in  the 
neighborhood,  and  that  they  adopted  from  these  Ligurians  many 
of  the  cults  that  were  inseparably  attached  to  places  later  included 
within  the  Roman  city.49 

One  of  the  prominent  natural  objects  of  the  Palatine  was  the 
Lupercal,  a  large  cavern,  with  a  spring  issuing  from  it,  with  the 
sacred  Ficus  Ruminalis  close  by,  and  with  dense  woods  all  about.50 
Since  a  site  like  that  was,  in  the  eyes  of  a  primitive  people,  a  par- 
ticularly natural  place  for  the  abode  of  a  deity,  the  probabilities 
are  all  in  favor  of  a  cult  having  been  established  at  the  Lupercal 
by  the  oldest  settlers  in  the  region.51  Moreover,  the  veneration 
shown  to  the  Ficus  Ruminalis  is  evidently,  Dr.  Evans  believes,  of 
Mediterranean  origin,  since  the  fig-tree  was  devoutly  worshipped 
throughout  the  lands  near  the  Mediterranean,  but  was  almost  un- 
known in  Central  Europe.52 


The  Wolf-Deity  in  Italy  35 

Associated  with  this  cave  was  the  well-known  tale  of  the  wolf 
who  was  foster-mother  to  Romulus  and  Remus.  It  is  significant 
that  in  the  oldest  versions  of  that  tale  the  wolf  was  the  all-important 
actor.  Dionysius  tells  how  the  wolf  cared  for  the  babes,  and  then, 
upon  the  arrival  of  the  shepherds,  retired  to  the  Lupercal  with 
such  deliberation  and  dignity  that  the  shepherds  believed  her  to 
be  under  the  guidance  of  some  god.53  In  this  version  the  human 
beings  had  a  secondary  part  in  the  preservation  of  the  twins; 
Faustulus  was  not  present  at  the  rescue,  and  his  wife  was  nameless 
and  insignificant.  Dionysius  supports  his  tale  with  a  long  list  of 
authorities:  Fabius  Pictor,  Cincius  Alimentus,  Cato,  Calpurnius 
Piso,  and  numerous  others.  This  version,  that  the  rescue  was  due 
to  a  real  wolf,  constantly  appears  in  history  and  in  epic.54 

Since  the  wolf  acted  under  Mars's  direction  for  the  rescue  of 
his  sons,  she  belongs  with  the  wolves  of  Apollo  who  cared  for  his 
son.55  The  Roman  story,  like  the  Greek  one,  suggests  an  animal 
god  who  was  later  replaced  by  a  human  one.  We  may  believe, 
then,  that  the  wolf  of  the  Lupercal,  originally  honored  as  a  deity, 
passed  through  the  same  development  as  did  Lycaeus,  and  was 
reduced  to  the  sacred  animal  of  Mars.  But  the  wolf  could  not  be 
wholly  banished  from  her  ancient  seat.  Therefore,  when  story- 
tellers portrayed  the  origin  of  Rome,  they  accounted  for  the  homage 
which  the  Romans  gave  to  the  wolf-deity  by  making  her  the  foster- 
mother  of  Rome's  founder.56 

Later  rationalists  sought  to  remove  the  wolf  from  the  story 
through  the  explanation  that  lupa,  which  was  the  common  designa- 
tion of  a  meretrix,  was  a  term  that  had  been  applied  to  the  wife  of 
Faustulus.57  To  provide  her  with  a  name,  they  identified  her  with 
Acca  Larentia,  an  ancient  goddess  whose  shrine  was  near  the  Lu- 
percal.58 This  identification  was  not  necessarily  an  arbitrary 
assumption,  based  upon  the  proximity  of  two  shrines.  Acca 
Larentia  was,  as  has  been  shown  by  Professor  Pais,  a  form  of  the 
earth-deity,  who  was  known  to  the  Romans  by  a  variety  of  names : 
Tellus,  Terra,  Ops,  Maia,  Bona  Dea,  Fauna,  Fatua,  Dea  Dia, 
and  Ceres.59  Thus  she  was  closely  akin  to  the  chthonic  wolf. 
Professor  Pais  even  goes  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  she  was  originally 
honored  as  a  real  wolf.60 

Our  next  question  is  whether  this  wolf-deity,  venerated  through- 
out Italy,  enshrined  in  the  Lupercal,  and  prominent  in  Rome's 


36  The  Lupercalia 

early  legends,  was  the  god  in  whose  honor  the  Lupercalia  was 
celebrated.  That  festival  was  associated  with  various  deities. 
Can  any  one  of  them  be  interpreted  as  the  wolf-god?  In  answer 
to  this  question,  one  naturally  thinks  of  Lupercus,  who  was  occa- 
sionally named  as  the  god  of  the  festival.61 

The  exact  meaning  of  the  name  Lupercus  has  been  since  the  days 
of  Roman  scholarship  a  matter  of  dispute.  Servius  suggests  a 
variety  of  interpretations.62  The  one  most  generally  accepted 
by  modern  authorities  is  that  Lupercus  came  from  lupus-}- arceo, 
and  so  meant  "he  who  keeps  off  the  wolves;"63  that  is,  the  Luperci 
were  "the  wolf-aver ters."  To  this  idea  the  weighty  objection  has 
been  raised  that  a  wolf-averting  festival  was  strangely  localized 
at  the  lair  of  the  beneficent  wolf  who  rescued  Rome's  founder, 
and  that  it  offered,  moreover,  no  explanation  of  the  abiding  hold 
which  the  Lupercalia  had  upon  the  urban  populace  of  Rome.64 
Another  explanation  offered  by  Servius,  and  supported  by  Ovid,65 
is  that  the  Lupercal  was  named  in  honor  of  the  wolf  which  rescued 
Romulus  and  Remus.  In  agreement  with  this  view  is  the  statement 
of  Lactantius,  that  Lupa,  the  nurse  of  Romulus,  was  accorded 
divine  honors.66  Varro,  a  more  valuable  authority,  actually  iden- 
tified the  wolf  with  the  goddess  Luperca.67  "The  savage  wolf," 
he  says,  "for  her  kindness  to  the  babes,  was  named  the  goddess 
Luperca."  It  is  noteworthy  that  Varro  uses  the  feminine  form  of 
the  name:  that  is  added  proof  of  its  antiquity,  for  in  many  cases 
the  female  deity  was  the  primitive  one,  but  was  later  displaced 
by  her  male  double.  Varro's  statement  seems  to  controvert  the 
view  which  has  been  advanced,68  that  Lupercus  was  merely  a  late 
abstraction  manufactured  from  the  festival.  We  seem  justified, 
therefore,  in  believing  that  there  was  a  wolf-formed  spirit  of  the 
Lupercal,  who  was  known  as  Lupa,  Luperca,  or  Lupercus™ 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  two  explanations  of  the  name  Lupercus 
which  are  offered  by  Servius  seem  to  reflect  two  different  stages  in 
the  history  of  the  god.  These  two  stages  appear  very  clearly  in 
the  names  of  the  wolf-god  of  Greece.  In  Arcadia  he  was  called 
Lycaeus,  "the  wolf-like;"  in  Argos,  where  he  was  identified  with 
Apollo,  the  compound  name  was  Apollo  Lycaeus.  But  the  wolf- 
god  was  later  explained  as  "he  who  destroys  the  wolves,"  there- 
fore Apollo's  appellation  became  AVKOKTOVOS,  "the  wolf-slayer."70 
In  like  manner,  the  Delphian  Apollo  was  called  both  Huflios 7I 


The  Wolf-Deity  in  Italy  37 

and  Uv6oKrovos.72  Dr.  Graillot  explains  this  by  saying  that 
Apollo  was  first  identified  with  the  chthonic  serpent,  and  later 
regarded  as  its  slayer.73  Similarly,  Artemis  was  called  both 
'EXa^cta  74  and  'EXa^jSoXos.75  This  is  a  development  that  con- 
stantly appears  in  ancient  religion,  for  when  a  primitive  animal- 
deity  had  faded  into  the  mere  epithet  of  an  anthropomorphic  god, 
scholars,  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  significance  of  the  animal  in 
the  cult,  explained  it,  in  case  the  animal  was  dangerous,  by  making 
the  god  its  special  foe  or,  if  the  animal  was  useful,  its  protector. 
As  this  explanation  entirely  disregarded  the  superstitious  veneration 
that  regularly  attached  to  the  animal,  modern  scholars  usually 
rate  it  no  more  highly  than  most  of  the  etymological  attempts 
of  the  ancients.76  In  like  manner,  the  deity  of  the  Lupercal  was 
probably  known  in  the  earliest  times  as  Lupa  or  Lupus.  Later, 
when  the  animal-god  had  lost  prestige,  the  usual  explanation  was 
employed,  that  the  god  was  a  wolf-averter;  and  the  name  was  altered 
to  Luperca  or  Lupercus.  This  explanation  obviates  all  the  difficulties 
arising  from  the  name :  it  is  in  harmony  with  the  reverence  shown  to 
the  wolf-god  and  to  his  festival ;  it  adopts  an  etymology  that  seems 
unassailable  (lupus -\-arceo) ;  and  it  is  in  accord  with  the  development 
seen  in  many  other  cults,  in  which  the  homage  first  given  to  the 
animal-god  was  later  given  to  the  deity  who  destroyed  that  animal. 

The  name  of  the  god  was  then  extended  to  his  priests,  and  they 
were  known  as  Luperci.  Mediterranean  worshippers  often  sought 
in  this  way  to  identify  themselves  with  their  deity.77  Thus  the 
devotees  of  Bacchus  called  themselves  Bacchae,  and  those  of 
Sabazios  or  Sabos,  Sabazioi  or  Saboi.78 

If  we  grant  the  existence  of  the  wolf-deity  Luperca,  it  seems 
inevitable  that  the  Lupercalia,  which  was  celebrated  at  her  cave, 
was  held  in  her  honor.  But  the  Romans  also  associated  the  festival 
with  Pan,  Pan  Lycaeus,  Faunus,  and  Inuus.  Justin  gives  us  the 
clue  to  this  variety  of  names.  He  states  that  there  was  at  the  foot 
of  the  Palatine  a  shrine  to  Lycaeus,  whom  the  Greeks  call  Pan, 
the  Romans  Lupercus. ,79  In  other  words,  Lupercus  was  regarded 
as  merely  the  Roman  double  of  Lycaeus.  Naturally  enough  then, 
Lupercus  was  also  identified  with  Pan  Lycaeus,  who  had  largely 
displaced  Lycaeus  in  Arcadia.80  Consequently  the  god  of  the 
Lupercalia  came  to  be  spoken  of  most  frequently  as  Pan  Lycaeus, 
or,  the  wolf-god  being  crowded  out  entirely,  as  simply  Paw.81 


38  The  Lupercalia 

Ovid,  who  alone  names  Faunus  as  the  god  of  the  festival,  shows 
clearly  that  he  uses  that  name  as  the  Roman  equivalent  of  Pan. 
He  begins  by  calling  the  Lupercalia  the  festival  of  Faunus;  then, 
to  explain  its  origin,  says  that  because  Pan  was  especially  honored 
by  the  ancient  Arcadians,  his  woodland  rites  were  established  in 
Rome  by  Evander.82  Thus  Ovid,  following  the  convention  of  his 
day,  used  the  names  Faunus  and  Pan  interchangeably.  But  he 
then  went  one  step  further  and  identified  Faunus  and  Pan  Lycaeus, 
asking:  "Who  denies  that  the  Luperci  have  their  name  from  the 
mountain  of  Arcadia?  In  Arcadia  the  Lycaean  Faunus  has  a 
temple."83  This  is  an  easy  extension  for  a  poet  to  make:  Faunus, 
being  identical  with  Pan,  is  also  identical  with  Pan  Lycaeus,  and, 
consequently,  with  Lycaeus,  the  god  whom  Pan  had  displaced. 
Thus  Ovid  really  accepted  the  general  view  that  Pan  Lycaeus  was 
god  of  the  Lupercalia;  but  he  translated  Pan  Lycaeus  into  a  still 
more  familiar  name,  Faunus.84 

The  explanation  of  Inuus  as  the  patron  deity  of  the  Lupercalia 
is  still  easier  to  establish.  Livy,  the  only  one  who  associates  Inuus 
with  that  festival,  says  that  the  rite  was  celebrated  in  honor  of 
Pan  Lycaeus,  whom  the  Romans  later  called  Inuus.85 

Probus  sums  up  the  whole  thing  by  stating  that  certain  persons 
regard  Pan,  Inuus,  and  Faunus  as  the  same.86  When,  therefore,  the 
Romans  spoke  of  the  deity  of  the  Lupercalia  as  Lupercus,.  Lycaean 
Pan,  Pan,  Faunus,  or  Inuus,  they  were  merely  applying  one  or 
another  name  to  the  same  god,  Lupercus,  the  Ligurian  brother 
of  the  Pelasgian  Lycaeus. 

The  cult  of  Lupercus  was  wholly  different  from  the  usual  religious 
ceremonies  of  the  Romans.  It  was  in  type  Pelasgian,  and  Ovid 
named  it  Pelasgian.87  Because  of  the  non-Roman  character  of 
the  ritual  and  the  similarity  of  Lupercus  to  Lycaeus,  the  majority 
of  the  legends  about  the  Lupercalia  said  that  it  was  founded  by 
the  Arcadian  exile  Evander.88  The  ancients  frequently  derived 
the  Ligurian  populace  in  various  parts  of  Italy  from  the  Pelasgians, 
often  naming  Arcadia  as  the  original  home  of  these  settlers,89 
since  in  historical  times  Arcadia  was  the  most  markedly  Pelasgian 
of  any  country  of  Greece.90  The  general  belief  of  the  oldest  writers 
that  the  Lupercalia  existed  before  Rome  was  founded,91  shows  that 
they  recognized  it  as  the  cult  of  a  pre-Roman  people.  Consequently 
the  germ  of  truth  to  be  extracted  from  the  legend  of  the  Arcadian 


The  Wolf -Deity  in  Italy  39 

origin  of  the  Lupercalia  is  that  it  was  a  festival  established  by  the 
Ligurians  who  lived  about  the  site  of  Rome  before  the  appearance 
of  the  Aryans.  It  had  so  strong  a  hold  upon  the  religious  imagina- 
tion, and  was  so  inseparably  connected  with  the  Lupercal,  that 
it  was  taken  over  by  the  conquerors.  The  founders  of  the  festival, 
however,  were  so  completely  absorbed  by  the  terramara  folk  that, 
when  ancient  scholars  began  to  speculate  about  this  rite  which  had 
all  the  ear-marks  of  a  Mediterranean  cult,  they  must  go  outside 
the  bounds  of  Italy  to  find  its  origin. 

That  the  Lupercalia  was  a  festival  of  the  Ligurian  face  is  borne 
out  by  the  legends  of  the  priests  who  performed  it,  the  Fabii  and 
the  Quintilii.92  The  latter  are,  in  all  the  accounts,  associated  with 
Romulus,  and  so  may  be  accepted  as  belonging  to  the  Romans.93 
According  to  most  legends,  the  Fabii  sprang  from  a  daughter  of 
Evander  and  Hercules.94  On  their  mother's  side,  then,  the  Fabii 
were  Ligurians.  Their  father  was  a  non-Roman  hero,  who  arrived 
at  the  Palatine  before  the  Romans  themselves.  Hercules  was 
originally  not  a  god,  but  a  hero  of  the  Pelasgians,  born  at  Tiryns, 
and  strongly  localized  in  Argolis  and  in  Arcadia.95  His  title 
'AXe£iKaKos %  expressed  his  power  to  protect  man  from  evil  of 
every  form.97  This  power  of  universal  protection,  which  is  so  marked 
in  chthonic  deities,  is  regarded  by  Dr.  Gruppe  as  the  oldest  stratum 
of  the  Hercules  cult,  and  as  the  origin  of  the  legends  of  his  twelve 
labors.98  Later  Hercules  was  appropriated  by  the  Dorians  and 
included  among  their  Olympian  deities.99  But  the  Hercules  to 
whom  Evander  dedicated  the  Ara  Maxima,100  and  who  became  the 
father  of  the  Fabii,  seems  to  have  been  the  Pelasgian  hero.  He 
was  called  Tirynthius  heros,101  and  was  attended  by  Argives.102 
Thus  the  Fabii  were  in  their  parentage  pre-Roman  and  Pelasgian. 

The  ceremonial  acts  of  the  Lupercalia  were  so  numerous  and  so 
incoherent  that  it  seems  hardly  credible  that  they  represent  the 
original  form  of  the  festival.  They  offer,  indeed,  every  appearance 
of  a  cult-complex,  in  which  there  has  been  a  gradual  accretion  of 
ceremonies.  In  seeking  to  reconstruct  the  earliest  stage  of  the 
Lupercalia,  we  note  that  none  of  the  accounts  which  make  the 
festival  antedate  the  founding  of  Rome  mention  the  cutting  of 
the  goat-skins  into  thongs,  nor  the  blows  dealt  by  the  Luperci 
to  the  women.  Ovid  assigned  this  ritual  act  to  a  later  period,  and 
we  shall  find  reason  to  believe  that  he  was  right.103  Likewise  the 


4O  The  Lupercalia 

sacrifice  of  the  dog  and  the  blood-ritual,  which  were  mentioned 
by  Plutarch  only,  reasonably  seem  to  have  been  a  later  develop- 
ment.104 

Of  the  ceremonial  which  was  ascribed  to  the  pre-Romans,  we 
have  a  fairly  coherent  picture,  though  authorities  vary  slightly 
about  the  details.  At  the  entrance  to  the  cave,  where  in  later 
times  stood  the  statue  of  the  she-wolf,105  a  sacrifice  was  offered.  In 
the  earliest  days  this  was  presumably  a  female  goat ;  later,  probably 
when  Luperca  had  been  merged  into  Lupercus,  a  male  goat  seems 
to  have  beefcf  added.106  After  the  sacrifice  a  ritualistic  race  was 
performed  by  the  Luperci,  who  in  the  earliest  times  were  evi- 
dently wholly  naked.107  Most  writers  place  the  sacrificial  feast 
after  the  return  of  the  Luperci  from  their  race,108  but  Ovid,  in  his 
lengthy  account,  says  that  the  Luperci  had  a  slight  repast — exigua 
dapes — before  the  race,  and  a  feast  after  it.109  The  natural  inter- 
pretation is  that,  immediately  after  the  sacrifice,  the  Luperci 
tasted  ceremonially  of  the  entrails,  as  the  priest  of  Lycaeus  did 
after  he  had  sacrificed.110  Such  a  rite  explains  Ovid's  words,  exigua 
dapes.  Then,  at  the  close  of  the  race,  came  the  feast  upon  the  flesh 
of  the  victim. 

The  descriptions  of  the  Lupercalia  assign  a  different  role  to  the 
Fabii  and  to  the  Quintilii.  The  two  groups  of  priests  evidently 
did  not  run  together,  as  the  word  discursus  or  an  equivalent  is 
regularly  used  to  describe  their  course.111  Tubero  says  that  the 
band  of  Remus,  (i.  e.  the  Fabii,112)  ran  first;  and,  when  they  were 
opposite  the  Aventine,  were  attacked  by  shepherds  of  Numitor, 
who  threw  at  them  stones,  spears,  and  anything  they  could  lay 
hands  on,  and  finally  captured  them;  the  followers  of  Romulus 
did  not  share  in  these  experiences.113  They  were  also  evidently 
debarred  from  the  sacrificial  feast,  for  Ovid  tells  that  in  the  race 
they  were  outstripped  by  the  Fabii,  and,  upon  their  arrival  at  the 
feast,  found  the  sacrifice  entirely  consumed,  only  the  bones  remain- 
ing.114 It  is  significant  that  on  that  occasion  Romulus  did  not 
show  his  usual  self-assertion;  he  merely  laughed  and  regretted 
that  his  followers  had  been  outdone  by  the  Fabii.  A  similar  tale 
is  told  about  the  Potitii  and  the  Pinarii,  the  priests  of  Hercules: 
the  former  arrived  first  and  ate  the  exta  of  the  victim,  but  the 
Pinarii  reached  there  only  in  time  to  share  in  the  rest  of  the  feast. 
For  this  reason  the  custom  continued  that  the  Pinarii  should  not 


The  Wolf -Deity  in  Italy  41 

eat  of  the  entrails.115  A  similar  distinction  between  the  Quintilii 
and  the  Fabii  seems  the  natural  basis  of  Ovid's  story.  We  may, 
then,  believe  that,  when  the  Roman  priests  were  admitted  to  the 
Ligurian  festival,  they  were  debarred  from  the  most  significant 
rites,  the  flight  and  the  feast.  Propertius  seems  to  regard  the 
Fabii  as  the  all-important  members  of  the  priesthood,  for,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  Luperci,  he  mentions  the  Fabii  only.116 

The  fact  that  the  Luperci  are  invariably  spoken  of  as  running 
on  their  course  shows  that  their  speed  was  an  essential  feature  of 
the  ceremony.  This  seems  to  have  been  overlooked  'in  previous 
explanations  of  the  festival.  Furthermore,  they  were  said  to  have 
run  naked  in  order  to  gain  swiftness.117  The  nakedness  may,  in 
itself,  have  been  of  ritualistic  significance;118  yet,  certainly,  when 
the  Luperci,  immediately  after  the  sacrifice  and  the  tasting  of 
the  entrails,  cast  aside  their  garments  and  ran  forth  at  top  speed, 
we  have  every  indication  of  a  ritualistic  flight.  The  legends  give 
no  evidence  that  the  original  race  was  around  the  Palatine,  as  it 
was  in  later  times.119  The  tale  of  the  pursuit  of  the  cattle-thieves 
suggests  a  course  away  from  the  village,  rather  than  around 
it.  Plutarch  describes  this  chase  by  the  word  c/cSpajueu',  while 
he  uses  TrtpiTpkxtw  of  the  course  run  by  the  Luperci  in  his  own 
day.120  Yet,  the  Luperci,  in  returning  to  the  cave  for  the  feast, 
may  well  have  encircled  the  hill  instead  of  going  back  by  the  same 
route.  In  that  act,  however,  we  do  not  see  the  ceremonial  sig- 
nificance which  attached  in  later  times  to  the  encircling  of  the 
Palatine,  when  the  Luperci  by  their  goat-skin  thongs  assured 
productivity  to  the  women  of  Rome. 

A  ritualistic  flight,  we  have  seen,  was  a  frequent  and  significant 
feature  of  expiatory  rites.  The  details  of  the  Lupercalia  correspond 
to  the  other  ceremonies  of  that  type  which  have  already  been 
examined.121  As  they  fled,  the  Luperci  were  pelted  with  missiles, 
just  as  were  the  priests  who  sacrificed  the  calf  at  Tenedos.122  The 
Lupercalia  culminated  in  a  feast  which  is  paralleled  by  the  one 
served  to  the  boys  in  the  Stepteria  when  they  were  returning  from 
their  exile.123  An  expiatory  sacrifice  is  the  most  frequent  type  in 
the  worship  of  a  god  who  is  embodied  in  a  dangerous  animal  like 
the  wolf.124  Therefore  we  may  explain  the  Lupercalia  in  its  earliest 
form  as  follows.  The  Luperci  endeavored  to  avert  from  the  people 
the  deity's  malignant  power  by  offering  it  sacrifice.  They  sought 


42  The  Lupercalia 

to  share  the  mysterious  potency  of  the  sacrificial  animal  by  eating 
of  its  entrails.  Yet  they  felt  that  the  act  of  slaying  an  animal 
consecrated  to  the  god  was  a  sacrilege;  therefore  they  fled,  as  from 
a  crime,  and  expiated  their  guilt  by  being  stoned.  Having  been 
thus  purified,  they  returned  to  the  Lupercal,  and  ate  in  sacramental 
fashion  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice.  The  mystic  significance  of  the 
stoning  and  the  sacramental  nature  of  the  meal  is  shown  by  the 
refusal  of  the  Fabii  to  share  those  rites  with  the  Quintilii. 

Such  a  ceremony  was  naturally  regarded  by  ancient  scholars 
as  a  Roman  double  of  the  Lycaea.  In  each  festival  the  sacrifice 
was  expiatory,  being  offered  to  appease  a  wolf-god.  The  priests 
incurred  guilt  by  slaying  the  victim,  and  fled.  After  a  purificatory 
experience  they  returned.  In  details  the  ritualistic  acts  of  the 
two  festivals  were  different,  but  the  underlying  meaning  was  the 
same. 

This  likeness  between  the  festivals  has  caused  some  authorities 
to  go  still  further,  and  to  hold  that  the  original  sacrifice  at  the 
Lupercalia  was  a  human  being.125  If  that  were  so,  it  is  very  strange 
that  there  are  no  legends,  as  about  the  Lycaea,  reminiscent  of  a 
loathsome  rite.  The  story  of  human  sacrifice  that  was  connected 
with  the  cult  of  Valeria  Luperca  makes  more  noticeable  the  fact 
that,  among  the  numerous  legends  of  the  Lupercalia,  not  one  has 
the  least  suggestion  that  a  human  being  was  once  the  victim.  Yet 
that  is  a  thing  that  makes  a  deep  impression,  and  is  more  liable 
than  any  other  ritual  act  to  produce  a  tale.  Also,  the  rites  of  the 
Lupercalia  fail  to  suggest  an  earlier  slaughter  of  a  man.  If,  for 
example,  a  man's  blood  is  sprinkled  upon  the  altar,126  the  symbolism 
is  clear:  the  deity,  being  deprived  of  his  accustomed  sacrifice, 
receives  in  substitution  a  few  drops  of  blood.  Also,  if  the  sword 
were  placed  at  the  throat  of  the  young  men,  it  would  be  emblematic 
of  their  death.  Such  a  rite  was  performed  at  Halae  in  memory 
of  an  earlier  human  sacrifice,  the  priest  going  so  far  in  his  realism 
as  to  draw  blood  from  the  man's  throat.127  But  the  placing  of 
the  sword  against  the  foreheads  of  the  youths  is  certainly  not  a 
natural  pantomime  of  sacrificial  slaughter.  The  ritual  of  the 
Lupercalia  involved  also  the  wiping  away  of  the  blood  by  wool 
dipped  in  milk.  That  act,  which  is  difficult  to  explain  on  the  theory 
of  human  sacrifice,  is,  as  we  shall  see,128  an  essential  part  of  the 
blood-ceremony  as  explained  upon  another  basis. 


The  Wolf-Deity  in  Italy  43 

The  parallelism  between  Lupercus  and  Lycaeus  suggests  another 
possible  victim  that  was  appropriate  for  a  wolf-god,  that  is,  a  wolf.129 
But,  if  wild  animals  were  ever  sacrificed  in  Italy,  not  a  vestige  of 
such  a  rite  has  come  down  to  us.  Hence  it  is  unsafe  to  assume  that 
at  some  remote  time  a  wolf  was  the  sacrificial  victim  of  the  Luper- 
calia. 

In  the  examination  of  the  goat-cults  of  Greece,130  we  shall  see 
that  a  human  or  a  wild  animal  victim  was  often  replaced  in  later 
times  t?y  a  goat.  It  is  possible  that  such  a  substitution  took  place 
in  the  Lupercalia  in  very  early  days,  though  the  lack  of  evidence 
makes  it  safer  to  accept  the  goat  as  the  original  sacrifice.  Dr. 
Farnell  shows  that  the  theory  of  sacramental  union  with  a  deity 
through  sacrifice  does  not  demand  the  belief  that  the  deity  was 
incarnate  in  the  sacrificial  animal.131  He  notes  that  in  the  Thes- 
mophoria  pigs  were  cast  into  a  chasm,  and.  devoured  by  snakes 
that  seem  to  have*  been  the  embodiment  of  the  earth-deity.  In 
the  same  way  a  goat  may  well  have  been  sacrificed  to  the  chthonic 
wolf.  Various  instances  of  goat-sacrifice  show  that,  even  when 
the  goat  had  not  the  character  of  an  animal -god,  it  was  a  sacrificial 
victim  that  possessed  a  special  sanctity.132 

When  the  ancients  called  the  Lupercalia  a  Pelasgian  rite,  and 
made  Lupercus  a  double  of  Lycaeus,  they  were  telling  the  truth. 
Those  gods  were  the  Greek  and  the  Roman  expression  respectively 
of  the  same  power.  Both  were  evolved  by  huntsmen  or  by  primitive 
shepherds,  who  shaped  their  deity  in  the  form  in  which  super- 
human might  was  most  clearly  manifested  to  them.  As  in  Asia 
Minor  this  power  was  incorporate  in  the  lion,  and  in  Crete  in  the 
bull,  so  in  Arcadia  and  in  Italy  the  wolf,  which  was  the  animal 
most  numerous  and  most  dreaded,  was  accepted  as  the  embodiment 
of  the  god.  He  was  a  pitiless  creature,  whose  baleful  power  both 
Pelasgians  and  Ligurians  sought  to  avert  by  rites  of  expiation. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IV 

1.  Keller,  Thiere  des  klassischen  Alterthums,  i,  159,   163;    Preller,  Romische 
Mythologie,  i,  116;   Reinach,  Orpheus,  97. 

2.  See  p.  36. 

3.  Verg.,  Aen.,  n.  785;  Plin.,  N.  H.,  7.  19.    Strabo  alone  (5.  9.  p.  226)  ascribes 
this  rite  to  Feronia,  who  had  her  shrine  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Soracte. 

4.  Deecke,  Die  Falisker,  4,  53;   Preller,  i,  268. 


44  The  Lupercalia 

5.  Farnell,  v,  375-6,  388-90;    Rhys,  638. 

6.  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  n.  785. 

7.  This  is  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Jordan  (Kritische  Beitrage,  163). 

8.  Dr.  Mannhardt  (Wald-  und  Feldkulte,  ii,  342)  notes  this  similarity,  though 
he  believes  that  the  festivals  celebrated  the  summer  solstice. 

9.  Wissowa,  Religion  und  Kultus  der  Romer,  238;    Reinach,   Cultes,   i,   296; 
Deecke,  92-4. 

10.  Verg.,  Aen.,  n.  785;   Plin.,  7.  19;   Solin.,  2.  26. 

11.  Ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  n.  785.     Hades,  who  was  very  similar  to  Dis  (Cook, 
Zeus,  99)  at  times  wore  a  wolf-skin  helmet.     (See  p.  28  n.  53.) 

12.  Plin.,  N.  H.,  7.  19;  Solin.,  2.  26. 

13.  Miiller,  Die  Etrusker,  ii,  68;   Deecke,  94-5;   Keller,  Thiere  KL  Alt.,  i,  172; 
Mannhardt,  W.  F.  K.,  327. 

14.  Modestov,  229. 

15.  Paul,  ex  Fest.,  106. 

1 6.  The  Hirpi  Sorani  should  not  be  confused  with  the  Sabellian  tribe,  the 
Hirpini,  who  journeyed  to  Southern  Samnium  under  the  guidance  of  a  wolf 
(Strab.,  4.  12). 

17.  Modestov,  31. 

1 8.  Montelius,  La  civilisation  primitive  en  Italie,  ii,  PL  307-331;   Deecke,  34. 

19.  Dionys.,  i.  21;  Strab.,  5.  9. 

20.  Dionys.,  i.  21.    See  also  E.  H.  Bunbury,  in  Smith,  Diet.  Geogr.,  i,  891. 

21.  Pseud.  Plut.  Parallel,  35. 

22.  Farnell,  ii,  441 ;  Stoll,  in  Roscher,  ii,  304. 

23.  See  pp.  36-7- 

24.  Babelon,  Monnaies  de  la  republique  romaine,  ii,  515-21. 

25.  See  p.  6. 

26.  The  double  name  Valeria  Luperca  cannot  have  been  the  ancient  form, 
therefore  the  adjective  Valeria  must  be  a  later  addition  (Mommsen,  Romische 
Forschungen,  i,  5). 

27.  Roscher,  ii,  2437. 

28.  Roscher,  ii,  2385-95. 

29.  Wissowa,  R.  K.t  141;    Mommsen,  The  History  of  Rome,  i,  175;  Preller,  i, 

US,  333- 

30.  Lex.  ii,  art.  Mars.    See  especially  2399-2415. 

31.  R.  F.,  34-5.    In  harmony  with  this  view  are  Roscher,  ii,  2429-34;   Schweg- 
ler,  Romische  Geschichte,  i,  228-315;    De  Sanctis,  Storia  dei  Romani,  i,  268-9; 
Preller,  i,  332-46;  Frazer,  ix,  229-34;  Piganiol,  115. 

32.  C.  I.  L.,  ii,  7871. 

33.  C.  I.  L.,  ii,  7862.    For  these  two  Ligurian  deities,  see  also  Conway,  Ligurian 
Religion,  in  Hastings,  Ency.  Rel.,  viii,  69. 

34.  Paul,  ex  Fest.,  106. 

35.  Liv.,  i.  5. 

36.  Modestov,  24. 

37.  Peet,  32.    See  also  Osborn,  Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age,  434. 

38.  Modestov,  2,  3. 


The  Wolf-Deity  in  Italy  45 

39.  Modestov,  252-5. 

40.  Var.,  L.  L.,  5.  42,  53,  101;  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  51-6,  97;  Liv.,  I.  7.  8;    Dionys., 
i.  9,  22,  39,  40;  2.  i;  Fest.,  321;  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  i.  273;  3.  500;  7.  795;  8.  51; 
ii.  317;   Solin.,  i.  13;   Macr.,  i.  7.  30;    n.  48. 

41.  Dionys.,  2.  i.  I,  2. 

42.  Var.,  R.  R.,  2.  n.  5. 

43.  Lippert,  ii,  549. 

44.  For  a  survey  of  the  ancient  cults  of  the  Aventine  and  of  the  valley  at  its 
foot,  see  Merlin,  L'Aventin  dans  Vantiquite,  45-52. 

45.  Verg.,  Aen.)  8.  230;   Ov.,  Fast.,  i.  551;  6.  82;  Liv.,  i.  7. 

46.  Liv.,  i,  ii ;    Dionys.,  2.  38,  40. 

47.  Macr.,  i.  8.  2. 

48.  Dionys.,  i.  32;  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  337;  Soiin.,  i.  13. 

49.  Modestov,  252;    Gilbert,  Geschichte  und  Topographic  der  Stadt  Rom  im 
Altertum,  i.  67. 

50.  Dionys.,  i.  32.  4,  5;  i.  79.  8. 

51.  Smith,  Semites,  151;  Jevons,  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  Religion, 
237.    Gilbert  (i,  53-7)  notes  the  evidences  of  an  ancient  cult  center  on  the  Cer- 
malus.     Lippert  (ii,  564)  ascribes  the  cult  at  the  Lupercal  to  the  pre-Roman 
inhabitants  of  the  Palatine. 

52.  /.  H.  S.,  xxi,  129. 

53.  Dionys.,  i.  79. 

54.  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  630;  Liv.,  i.  5;  Plut.,  Rom.,  2.  4;  id.  de  Fort.  Rom.,  8.  D,  E; 
id.  Q.  R.,  21 ;  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  343;  Just.,  43.  2.  7;  Arnob.,  adv.  Gent.,  4.  3. 

55.  Seep.  25. 

56.  Dr.  Pais,  in  an  elaborate  study,  advances  the  view  that  the  wolf  in  Italy 
was  the  animal  incarnation  of  the  earth-spirit  (Ancient  Legends  of  Roman  History, 
60-95).    See  also  Reinach,  Cultes,  i,  295. 

57.  Liv.,  i.  4.  7. 

58.  Plut.,  Rom.,  5.  4. 

59.  Anc.  Leg.,  46-95.     This  interpretation  of  Acca  Larentia  is  supported  by 
many  authorities:  Preller,  i,  398-400,  ii,  26;  Lippert,  ii,  547;  Fowler,  R.  F.,  74. 

60.  Anc.  Leg.,  84. 

61.  Just.,  43.  I.  7. 

62.  Ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  343. 

63.  This  etymology  is  favored  by  Walde   (447),  by    Marquardt   (Romische 
Staatsverwaltung,  iii,  439  n.  4),  by  Deubner  (Arch.  f.  Rel.  vol.  xiii,  484),  and  by 
Lippert  (ii,  564).    The  suggestion  of  linger  (Die  Lupercalien,  in  Rhein.  Mus.,  vol. 
xxxvi,  64)  that  Lupercus  comes  from  lues  and  parco  has  won  no  acceptance  (Mar- 
quardt, iii,  438  n.  10;  Gilbert,  i,  145  n.  2;  Preller,  i,  380  n.  4). 

64.  For  this  reason  Schwegler  suggests  the  etymology  lupus  -f-  hircus,  wolf- 
goats,  saying  (i,  361)  that  the  two  bands  of  the  Luperci  represent  respectively  the 
animal  daemons,  the  wolf  and  the  goat.     This  etymology  is  accepted  unreservedly 
by    Mannhardt     (Mythologische    Forschungen,    90),    and    tentatively   by    Hild 
(Daremberg-Saglio,  iii,  1399). 

65.  Fast.,  2.  421. 


46  The  Lupercalia 

66.  Lact.,  Inst.,  i.  20.  i. 

67.  Ap.  Arnob.,  4.  3. 

68.  Fowler,  R.  F.,  312. 

69.  Jordan  (Krit.  Beitr.,  164-5)  believes  that  Luperca  was  merely  an  expanded 
form  of  lupa,  being  developed  from  it  on  the  analogy  of  noierca,  and  thus  meaning 
nothing  more  than  wolf.    This  view  is  supported  by  Otto  (in  Pauly  Wissowa,  vi, 
2O55)»  by  Preller  (i,  380  n.  4),  by  Gilbert  (i,  145  n.  2),  and  by  Mommsen  (H.  R., 
i,  156).    Walde,  however  (447),  does  not  consider  it  probable,  in  view  of  the  form 
of  the  word. 

70.  Hesych.,  AVKOKTOVOS. 

71.  Horn.  Hym.  in  Apol.,  373. 

72.  Hym.  orph.tM.4. 

73.  Cybele,!. 

74.  Strab.,  8.  528. 

75.  Etymol.  Mag.,  'E\atpr)^o\icov. 

76.  Reinach,  Cultes,  i,  58;  Aust,  Die  Religion  der  Rcmer,  4;  Fowler,  R.  E.,  163. 

77.  Dr.  Cook  (Zeus  441-4)  cites  a  number  of  instances  in  which  the  worship- 
pers took  the  name  of  an  animal-god. 

78.  Eur.,  Bac.,  83;   Phot.,  Lex.,  s.  v. 

79.  Just.,  43.  i.  7. 

80.  See  p.  24. 

81.  Pan  or  Pan  Lycaeus  is  named  the  god  of  the  Lupercalia  in  the  following 
passages:  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  344;   Dionys.,  i.  32.  3;  Plut.,  Q.  R.,  68;  Serv.  ad  Verg., 
Aen.,  8.  343,  663;  Charis.,  Gram.  Lat.,  i,  550.  10;  Anton.,  Gram.  Lat.,  v,  500.  35. 

82.  Fast.,  2.  267-79. 

83.  Fast.,  2.  423. 

84.  The  other  reasons  which  have  led  persons  to  regard  Faunus  as  the  god  of 
the  Lupercalia  are  considered  on  pp.  54-7. 

85.  Liv.,  i.  5.  2. 

86.  Ad  Verg.,  Georg.,  i.  10.    See  also  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  A  en.,  6.  775,  and  Cledon., 
Gram.  Lat.,  v,  35. 

87.  Fast.,  2.  281. 

88.  Dionys.,  i.  80;    Ov.,  Fast.,  2.  279;    Liv.,  I.  5.  i,  2;    Plut.,  Rom.,  21;    id. 
Caes.,  61;   Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  343.    See  also  Nilsson,  444  n.  2. 

89.  Dionys.,  i.  u,  13,  22;  2.  i;   Pherec.  jr.  85;  Strab.,  6.  3.  8. 

90.  See  p.  10. 

91.  Evander  was  regarded  as  the  founder  of  the  Lupercalia  by  Fabius  Pictor, 
Cincius  Alimentus,  Cato,  and  Calpurnius  Piso  (Dionys.,  i.  79).    See  also  Liv.,  I. 
5;   Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  344.    Acilius  Glabrio  followed  the  common  Roman  fashion  of 
making  Romulus  the  founder  of  Roman  institutions:    before  Rome  was  estab- 
lished,   he  says  (ap.  Plut.,   Rom.  21),    Romulus,  having  had  his  cattle  stolen, 
sacrificed  a  goat  and  pursued  the  thieves;  the  Lupercalia  commemorates  that  race. 
Variants  of  this  account  tell  that  Romulus  and  Remus,  after  they  had  conquered 
Amulius  (Plut.,  Rom.,  21),  or  after  Numitor  had  given  them  permission  to  found  a 
new  city  (Val.  Max.,  2.  2.  9),  ran  in  joy  to  the  place  where  they  had  been  reared. 
All  these  accounts  harmonize  with  those  that  ascribe  the  festival  to  Evander,  in  the 


The  Wolf -Deity  in  Italy  47 

vital  point  that  the  Lupercalia  was  established  before  the  city  of  Rome   was 
founded. 

92.  Paul,  ex  Fest.,  87.    The  Julian  Luperci,  who  were  not  added  until  Caesar's 
day  (Dio  Cass.,  44.  6)  need  not  concern  us  here. 

93.  Ov.,  Fast.,  2.  378;   Aurel.  Viet.,  Or.  Gent.  Rom.,  22. 

94.  Plut.,  Fab.  Max.,  i;   Sil.  It.,  2.  3;  6.  634;   Paul,  ex  Fest.,  87. 

95.  Friedlander,  Herakles,  163,  et  passim. 

96.  Van,  L.  L.,  6.  82. 

97.  Diirbach,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  iii,  80;   Friedlander,  163-4. 

98.  Gruppe,  453-60. 

99.  Friedlander,  139. 

100.  Liv.,  i.  5. 

101.  Sil.  Ital.,  2.  3. 

102.  Var.,  L.  L.,  5.  45. 

103.  See  pp.  61-3. 

104.  For  the  discussion  of  these  elements,  see  chapters  VIII,  IX. 

105.  Var.,  L.  L.,  5.  85. 

106.  Ovid  (Fast.,  2.  361)  names  a  capella  as  the  victim.     Plutarch  (Rom.,  21) 
and  Valerius  Maximus  (2.  2.  9)  say  that  goats  were  slain.    Servius  alone  (ad  Verg., 
Aen.,  8.  343)  names  a  male  goat  as  the  only  victim. 

107.  Tubero  alone  speaks  of  them  as  wearing  girdles  cut  from  the  skins  of  the 
goats  (Dionys.,  i.  80).    These  girdles  seem  to  belong  naturally  with  the  goat-skin 
thongs  which  the  Luperci  carried  at  a  later  time.     All  the  legends  explain  the 
nakedness  of  Romulus  and  Remus  as  due  to  their  haste  in  running.    It  is  unreason- 
able to  imagine  them,  when  in  such  haste,  stopping  to  cut  girdles.    Dr.  Deubner 
believes  that  the  Luperci  were  in  earliest  times  wholly  naked,  though  he  bases 
his  conclusion  on  different  grounds  (Arch.  f.  Rel.,  vol.  xiii,  491-2). 

108.  Valerius  Maximus  alone  (2.  2.  9)  places  the  feast  before  the  race. 

109.  Fast.,  2.  361,  371. 
no.    See  p.  22. 

in.    Ov.,  Fast.,  2.  371;  Val.  Max.,  2.  2.9;  Prudent.,  contra Sym.,  2.  862;  Aurel. 
Viet.,  Or.  Gent.  Rom.,  22. 

112.  In  the  legends,  the  Fabii  are  regularly  made  the  followers  of  Remus. 

113.  Dionys.,  i.  80. 

114.  Ov.,  Fast.,  2.  373-8. 

115.  Liv.,  i.  7.  13. 

1 1 6.  Prop.,  4.  i.  26. 

117.  Plut.,  Rom.,  21 ;   Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  343. 

118.  Dr.  Deubner  cites  instances  of  ceremonial  nakedness  (Arch.  Rel.,  vol. 
xiii,  491). 

119.  Var.,  L.  L.,  6.  34. 

120.  Plut.,  Rom.,  21. 

121.  See  p.  23. 

122.  See  p.  23. 

123.  See  p.  23. 

124.  Toutain,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  iv.  956. 


48  The  Lupercalia 

125.  Schwegler,  i,  363.    Others  are  cited  by  Marquardt,  iii,  443,  notes  11-3. 

126.  Theophrastus  (ap.  Prophyr.,  de  Abst.,  2.  27)  notes  an  instance  of  this  sort. 

127.  Eur.,  Iph.  Taur.,  1458. 

128.  See  pp.  84-7. 

129.  See  p.  24. 

130.  See  chap.  V. 

131.  Farnell,  iii,  90;    id.  Sacrificial  Communion,    in   Hibbert   Jour.,    vol.   iii, 
319-21. 

132.  See  p.  51. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  SACRED  GOAT  IN  GREECE 

The  veneration  of  a  wild  animal  tends  to  be  crowded  into  the 
background  as  a  people  advances  in  civilization.  When  life  becomes 
more  settled,  and  savage  beasts  are  no  longer  a  constant  menace, 
men  are  liable  to  embody  their  god  in  the  form  of  one  of  the  animals 
upon  whom  their  existence  largely  depends:  the  ram,  the  bull,  or 
the  goat.  In  many  cases  this  more  kindly  god  absorbs,  entirely  or 
in  part,  the  savage  deity.  In  other  instances  the  two  gods  exist 
side  by  side,  but  the  cult  of  the  savage  god  is  modified  by  that  of 
the  more  civilized  one.  The  god  of  the  pastoral  stage  who  made 
his  way  most  frequently  into  the  cults  of  other  deities  was  the 
goat-god.  As  the  goat  can  thrive  on  the  most  barren  hillside,  his 
cult  was  widespread  and  important  in  Greece  in  very  early  times. 
In  the  Lupercalia  the  blows  which  were  dealt  by  goat-skin  thongs 
formed  the  most  prominent  feature  of  the  ritual.  To  interpret  this 
importance  of  the  goat  in  a  wolf  festival,  we  turn  to  the  cults  of 
the  goat  in  Greece. 

In  Crete  the  sacred  goat  was  frequently  portrayed  by  Minoan 
artists  as  a  fertility  fetish.1  In  later  times  it  took  the  form  of  the 
goat  Amaltheia,  who  expressed  the  general  conception  of  the  earth- 
power,  being  a  giver  of  fertility  and  a  protector  from  evil.2  Her 
fertilizing  potency  came  to  be  expressed  in  the  cornucopia,  which 
was  probably  developed  from  the  original  goat's  horn,  and  which 
constantly  appears  in  the  possession  of  earth-deities,  such  as 
Hades,  Gaia,  or  the  river-gods.3 

Pan  was  frankly  a  goat-god,  not  only  in  his  half-human  form,4 
but  also  in  his  instincts.  As  the  goat  was  to  the  ancients  the  symbol 
of  lust,  so  Pan  was  the  incarnation  of  lustful  passion.5  He  was, 
therefore,  an  embodiment  of  the  creative  and  life-giving  power  of 
nature.  Pan's  cult  originated  in  Arcadia,  where  Mount  Lycaeus 
was  sacred  to  him  as  well  as  to  the  wolf-god.6  Thence  his  worship 
spread  throughout  the  Greek  world,7  developing  with  particular 
strength  among  the  Athenians.8  Thus  his  character  and  the 
people  who  venerated  him  mark  Pan  as  a  Pelasgian  deity. 

Another  primitive  nature-god,  Dionysus,  was  at  times  associated 


5O  The  Lupercalia 

with  the  goat.  Such  titles  as  'Epi<£ios,  Me\d^at7ts,  or 
also  the  myths  in  which  Dionysus  was  disguised  as  a  goat,10  indicate 
that  at  times  he  was  worshipped  in  goat-form.  A  legend  of  Potniae, 
in  Boeotia,  tells  that  the  people,  having  offended  Dionysus,  were 
suffering  from  a  frightful  pestilence.  In  obedience  to  the  Delphic 
oracle,  a  boy  was  sacrificed  to  the  angry  god ;  but  not  many  years 
afterward  Dionysus  himself  substituted  a  goat  for  the  boy.11  A 
goat  was  sometimes  rent  asunder  in  the  wild  orgy  to  Dionysus 
known  as  the  Omophagia,12  in  which  the  worshippers  devoured  the 
raw  flesh  of  a  sacred  animal  and  drank  its  blood,  thus  partaking 
of  its  divinity.13 

Though  Artemis  was  preeminently  the  goddess  of  the  wild  things, 
she  bore  the  title  Afyii/euas,14  and  among  the  Spartans  and  the 
Athenians  received  a  goat  as  her  usual  victim.15  At  her  famous 
and  ancient  shrine  at  Brauron  a  curious  rite  was  performed: 
•maidens,  known  as  bears,  and  wearing  saffron  robes  which  perhaps 
imitated  a  bear-skin,16  danced  a  bear-dance  in  honor  of  the  bear- 
goddess  Artemis,  the  ceremony  ending  with  the  sacrifice  of  a  bear.17 
Yet  in  historical  times  a  goat  was  usually  sacrificed,18  in  substitution, 
evidently,  for  the  wild-animal  victim.19  Another  legend  indicates 
that  a  human  being  was  at  one  time  sacrificed :  the  Athenians  were 
said  to  have  suffered  from  a  pestilence  because  they  had  injured  a 
bear,  and  a  maiden  was  demanded  in  expiatory  sacrifice ;  whereupon 
a  man  concealed  his  daughter,  dressed  a  goat  in  her  garments,  and 
sacrificed  it  in  her  stead.20 

The  goat  was  important  in  the  worship  of  Apollo,  who  was  ven- 
erated in  many  places  as  a  pastoral  god.21  In  Crete  legend  told 
that  a  goat  had  suckled  the  twin  sons  of  Apollo.  A  Cretan  town, 
accordingly,  sent  to  Delphi  a  bronze  group  of  the  goat  and  the  babes 
as  a  votive  offering.22  At  Delphi  the  Python,  who  was  the  first 
possessor  of  the  oracular  shrine,  and  who  was  slain  by  Apollo,  was 
buried,  we  are  told,  by  his  son  Ai£.23  That  seems  to  indicate  that 
at  Delphi  the  autochthonous  serpent-cult  was  displaced  by  the 
goat-cult,  and  that,  in  turn,  by  the  anthropomorphic  deity.  Goats 
were  believed  to  have  discovered  the  oracular  cave  at  Delphi,24  and 
were  the  usual  sacrificial  victims  there.  The  oracle  frequently 
enjoined  upon  its  devotees  the  sacrifice  of  a  goat.25 

The  magic  power  of  the  goat-skin,  of  such  importance  in  the 
Lupercalia,  was  appropriated  by  some  of  the  greater  deities  of 


The  Sacred  Goat  ir\,  Greece  51 

Greece.  Athena  appears  almost  invariably  wearing  the  goat-skin, 
the  aegis,  across  her  breast.26  Apollo,  Juno,  and  Zeus  were  also 
wearers  of  the  aegis.'"  By  putting  on  the  skin  of  the  goat,  the 
anthropomorphic  gods  sought  to  transfer  to  themselves  the  power 
of  the  animal -god.  The  magic  potency  which  the  goat  was  supposed 
to  possess  is  shown  very  clearly  in  a  ceremony  of  Athens,  in  which 
a  priestess  bore  a  goat-skin  to  the  homes  of  newly-married  women.28 
This  is  naturally  interpreted  as  being  designed  to  secure  offspring.2* 
It  offers,  accordingly,  an  illuminating  parallel  to  the  use  of  the 
goat-skin  in  the  Lupercalia. 

As  a  sacrificial  victim,  the  goat  was  used  in  various  solemn 
rites,  particularly  in  those  of  the  expiatory  type.30  Thus  a  goat  was 
sacrificed  to  Apollo  Apotropaios  at  Marathon.31  When  the  people 
of  Kleonae  were  threatened  with  pestilence,  they  sacrificed  a  goat 
at  sunrise,  and  sent  a  bronze  goat  as  a  votive  offering  to  Delphi.32 
In  the  Laconian  ceremony  of  the  KoTrtSes,  the  goat  was  the  only 
animal  that  might  be  sacrificed,  and  the  people  ate  its  flesh  in 
sacramental  fashion,  together  with  a  certain  kind  of  bread.33  These 
instances  of  goat-sacrifice  may  well  be  parallel  to  that  of  the 
Lupercalia.  There  is  no  evidence  in  these  rites  that  the  goat  was 
sacrificed  as  an  animal-god ;  yet  it  was  a  victim  that  was  especially 
potent  to  ward  off  evil. 

In  Greece  the  cult  of  the  goat,  which  appeared  in  Minoan  Crete, 
was  centralized  in  Arcadia,  and  warmly  welcomed  in  Athens  and 
in  Boeotia:  that  is,  it  was  especially  venerated  among  the  Pelas- 
gians.  The  goat  was  not  an  object  of  dread,  as  the  wolf  so  often 
was,  but  was  loved  as  the  bringer  of  blessings — the  life-giver.  The 
goat  was  on  friendly  terms  with  other  deities,  sharing  with  Lycaeus 
his  shrine,  and  being  received  at  Delphi  as  the  son  of  Python.  As  a 
sacrificial  victim  the  goat  was  especially  important.  Often  it  seems 
to  have  been  substituted  for  a  wild  animal  or  for  a  human  being; 
at  other  times  it  had  a  magic  potency  to  ward  off  evil.  Even 
Olympian  deities  were  influenced  by  the  goat,  for  they  were  often 
glad  to  wear  his  skin,  and  thus  to  appropriate  his  creative  power. 


52  The  Lupercalia 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  V 

1.  Evans,  J.  H.  S.,  xxii,  182;  Mackenzie,  Crete,  188,  307;  Pick,  147;  Hogarth, 
The  Zakro  Sealings,  in  J.  H.  S.,  vol.  xxii,  1902,  p.  34-7,  Fig.  1 15-26  et  al. 

2.  Callim.,  Hym.  in  lov.,  48;    Apollod.,  BibL,  i.  i.  7;    Hygin.,  Astr.  Poet., 
2.  13;   Wernecke,  in  Pauly-VVissowa,    i,  1721.  The  nursing  of  Zeus  by  Amaltheia 
is  told  only  by  Alexandrian  writers,  hence  seems  to  have  been  a  late  development 
(Farnell,  i,  109). 

3.  Saglio,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  i,  220;  Stoll,  in  Roscher,  i,  263-5. 

4.  Wernicke,  in  Roscher,  iii,  1407. 

5.  Aug.,  de  Civ.  Dei,  15.  23;  The  Satyrs,  of  the  same  form  and  character  as 
Pan,  are  to  be  recognized  as  merely  the  duplicates  of  Pan  (E.  Kiihnert,  in  Roscher, 
iv,  516-31;    G.  Nicole,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  iv,  1090. 

6.  See  p.  24. 

7.  Wernicke,  in  Roscher,  iii,  1349-79. 

8.  Lucian,  Bis.  Accus.,  10;    id.,  Deor.  Dial.,  22.  2. 

9.  Paus.,  2.  35.  i;    Hesych.,  'Epi<j>ios',  Schol.  ad  Aristoph.,  Acharn.,  146. 

10.  Suid.,  MeXdi/cuYis  Aiowaos;'  Ov.,  Met.,  5.  329;   Apollod.,  BibL,  3.  4.  .?. 

11.  Paus.,  9.  8.  2. 

12.  Hesych.,  rpcryi^pot ;    Eur.,  Bac.,  139;    Arnob.,  5.  19. 

13.  Harrison,  482. 

14.  Paus.,  3.  14.  2. 

15.  Ael.,  Var.   Hist.,  2.  25;  Xen.,  Anab.,  3.  2.  12,  13;   id.,  Hellen.,  4.  2.  20; 
Plut.,  Lycurg.,  22. 

16.  Farnell,  ii,  437. 

17.  Aristoph.,  Lysistr.,  645,  and  Schol.  ad  loc. 

1 8.  Hesych.,  Bpaupcoviois. 

19.  Farnell,  ii,  437. 

20.  Suid.,  "EAtjSapos. 

21.  Farnell,  iv,  123,  254. 

22.  Paus.,  10.  16.  5. 

23.  Plut.,  Q.  G.,  12. 

24.  Diodor.,  16.  26.  i,  2. 

25.  Diels,  Sibyllinische  Blatter,  51;   Farnell,  iv,  254-5. 

26.  Diodor.,  3.  70.  5;  Farnell,  i,  100. 

27.  Saglio,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  i,  101;   Farnell,  i,  100,  iv,  255. 

28.  Suid.,  01715. 

29.  Farnell,  i,  100. 

30.  For  a  survey  of  the  various  cults  in  which  the  goat  was  a  ceremonial 
victim,  see  Farnell,  iv,  255. 

31.  Farnell,  iv,  255. 

32.  Paus.,  10.  ii.  5. 

33.  Athen.,  138  f. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  SACRED  GOAT  IN  ITALY 

In  Italy  the  deities  affiliated  with  the  goat  are  far  less  numerous 
than  in  Greece.  Outside  the  cult  of  the  obscure  Veiovis,  of  Faunus, 
and  of  Juno  Caprotina,  the  goat  plays  only  an  insignificant  part. 
Consequently  the  importance  of  the  goat-skin  as  employed  by  the 
Luperci  is  the  more  remarkable.  As  we  review  the  goat-cults  of 
Italy,  the  question  before  us  will  be,  "Did  the  cult  of  the  goat  in 
Italy  have  a  similar  history  and  significance  to  that  which  it  had  in 
Greece?" 

The  goat  was  sacrificed  to  Veiovis  ritu  humano,  and  the  statue  of 
Veiovis  had  a  goat  standing  by  his  side.1  The  expression  ritu  humano 
is  often  taken  to  mean  that  an  animal  victim  was  substituted  for  a 
human  sacrifice.  If  this  is  true,  the  sacrifice  to  Veiovis  passed 
through  the  phases  which  we  saw  in  the  Greek  cults.  Very  little 
is  known  about  Veiovis,  but  he  is  regarded  as  unquestionably  an 
underworld  deity.2 

A  god  having  a  far  more  intimate  relation  to  the  goat,  and  also 
much  better  known,  was  Faunus,  an  ancient  deity  of  Latium,  who 
is  Constantly  mentioned  with  the  aborigines  of  Italy.3  The  antiquity 
and  character  of  Faunus  comes  out  most  clearly  in  his  double, 
Fauna,  the  older  deity,  whom  Faunus  later  displaced.  She  was 
known  by  many  descriptive  epithets:  Fenta  Fatua,  Tellus,  Ops, 
Maia,  Bona  Dea,  or  Dea  Dia.4  The  kinship  of  this  goddess  to  other 
earth-mothers  was  recognized  by  Macrobius,  who  considered  her 
identical  with  Proserpina,  Hecate,  Semele,  and  Cybele.5  She  was, 
therefore,  one  of  the  numerous  forms  of  the  chthonic  deity  of  the 
Mediterranean  people. 

Faunus  was  a  god  whose  importance  became  shadowy  as  civili- 
zation advanced.  The  numerous  legends  of  Faunus,  god  of  oracles,6 
and  mysterious  creature  of  the  wilds,7  show  how  important  a  place 
he  had  in  early  days  among  the  gods  of  Italy.  But  to  the  people 
of  later  times  he  lost  much  of  his  mystic  power,  and  was  merely  a 
god  of  the  herds.  Out  in  the  country  districts  sacrifice  continued 
to  be  offered  to  him ; 8  yet  even  there  the  almost  total  lack  of  votive 
inscriptions  to  Faunus  shows  how  little  real  hold  he  had  upon  the 


54  The  Lupercalia 

people  by  the  time  writing  was  in  general  use.9  Ultimately  he 
came  to  be  little  more  than  a  mythical  king.  Varro,  in  seeking  to 
explain  him,  reversed  the  order  of  development,  .saying  that  Faunus 
belonged  to  the  class  of  gods  who,  originally  mortals,  were  deified 
after  death.10  This  shows  how  vague  he  had  become  by  Varro's 
day.  Cicero  says  that  he  does  not  know  at  all  what  Faunus  is.11  In 
Rome  Faunus  won  scant  recognition ;  it  was  not  until  194  B.  C.  that 
a  temple  was  erected  to  him.  Even  then  he  was  not  admitted  within 
the  Pomoerium,  but  was  established  on  the  Tiber  Island.12  The 
temple  once  built,  we  hear  nothing  more  of  it.13  Faunus  owes  most 
of  his  fame  to  the  Alexandrian  poets,  who  identified  him  with  Pan.14 

Faunus  is  the  god  whom  many  modern  scholars  believe  to  have 
been  the  deity  of  the  Lupercalia.15  They  explain  his  lack  of  a  temple 
within  the  Pomoerium  by  saying  that  the  Lupercal  was  his  shrine. 
The  statue  erected  there,  showing  the  god  naked  and  girded  with  a 
goat-skin,16  they  regard  as  a  representation  of  Faunus.  But  the 
goat-skin  girdle  is  not  enough  to  show  that  Faunus  was  the  deity 
portrayed.  The  artist  who  carved  the  image  set  up  at  the  Lupercal, 
being  obliged  to  represent  a  god  who  was  but  little  known,  met  the 
difficulty  by  making  him  like  the  priests  who  bore  his  name.  Justin 
makes  this  perfectly  clear,  for  he  states  that  the  statue  of  Lupercus 
at  the  foot  of  the  Palatine  represented  the  god  in  the  garb  which 
the  Luperci  wore.17 

Another  reason  which  is  offered  for  regarding  Faunus  as  the  god 
of  the  Lupercalia  is  that  the  temple  of  Faunus  on  the  Tiber  Island 
was  dedicated  February  13,  two  days  before  the  Lupercalia.18  This 
naturally  seems  to  indicate  a  connection  between  the  god  and  the 
festival;  and  it  may,  indeed,  easily  be  true  that  the  priests  chose  to 
associate  this  half-forgotten  god,  to  whom  they  had  just  erected  a 
temple,  with  a  festival  that  was  as  ancient  as  he  was,  and  in  which 
the  goat  had  a  prominent  part.  Such  syncretism  is  common  enough 
in  Roman  religion.  But  this  late  association  does  not  prove  that 
Faunus  was  the  original  deity  of  the  Lupercalia;  and  the  common 
people  seem  never  to  have  regarded  him  as  such.19 

In  the  country  districts  Faunus  was  not  worshipped  in  February, 
but  on  the  Nones  of  December,  and  in  his  rites  there  appears  nothing 
that  is  akin  to  the  Lupercalia.  A  kid,  a  ewe,  or  a  lamb  was  offered  to 
him,  then  the  shepherds  danced  in  triple  measure.20  It  was  a  cheery 
rustic  celebration,  directed  toward  the  protection  and  the  fecundity 


The  Sacred  Goat  in  Italy  55 

of  the  herds.21  There  was  no  suggestion  of  the  lustral  race  and  the 
life-giving  blows  by  which  the  Luperci  assured  fertility  and  puri- 
fication to  human  beings.  In  the  cult  of  Fauna  the  offering  of  milk 
and  the  administering  of  blows22  give  a  slight  suggestion  of  the 
features  of  the  Lupercalia.  But  milk  was  frequently  used  as  a 
libation  in  early  cults,  and  as  an  offering  to  Fauna  it  shows  none  of 
the  mysticism  which  dominates  its  use  in  the  Lupercalia.  The  blows 
were  dealt  by  myrtle  rods  instead  of  by  goat-skin  thongs.  It  was, 
moreover,  the  statue  of  Fauna,  not  the  worshippers,  that  was 
struck.  The  cult  of  neither  Faunus  nor  Fauna,  therefore,  offers 
any  basis  for  connecting  Faunus  with  the  Lupercalia. 

Is  there  in  the  attributes  of  Faunus  anything  which  might  link 
him  with  that  festival?  'Most  frequently  of  all  Faunus  is  spoken  of 
as  the  god  of  prophecy  and  of  oracles.23  But  there  is  not  a  suggestion 
of  oracular  inspiration  in  the  Lupercalia.  Very  rarely  Faunus  is 
given  the  power  of  purification,24  but  it  seems  to  be  too  undeveloped 
in  him  to  account  for  the  significance  of  the  Lupercalia  as  a  lustral 
ceremony. 

If  Faunus  was  worshipped  in  the  Lupercalia,  it  must  have  been 
because  he  was  the  god  of  the  flocks.25  This  is  the  basis  upon  which 
many  assume  his  connection  with  the  ceremony,  the  race  of  the 
Luperci  around  the  Palatine  being  regarded  as  a  measure  of  pro- 
tection for  the  cattle  that  in  early  times  were  herded  there.26  This 
view  depends  largely  on  the  passage  in  which  Servius  says  that 
Lupercus  may  be  so  named  because  he  keeps  the  wolves  from 
attacking  the  flocks.27  As  we  have  already  seen,28  this  is  merely  an 
attempt  to  explain  in  the  regulation  hackneyed  way  the  origin  of 
the  name  Lupercus.  A  point  deserving  of  more  consideration  is  the 
statement  of  Gaius  Acilius,  that  Romulus,  when  his  cattle  were 
stolen,  invoked  the  aid  of  Faunus  and  ran  forth  naked  in  pursuit.29 
Possibly  Acilius  means  to  indicate  by  this  that  Faunus  was  the  god 
of  the  festival.  Acilius  lived  at  the  time  when  the  temple  of  Faunus 
was  built  on  the  Tiber  Island,  and  may  have  accepted  the  connection 
between  Faunus  and  the  Lupercalia  which,  it  seems,  the  priests 
sought  to  establish.  But  if  such  was  his  view,  it  had  little  support; 
we  hear  no  earlier  suggestion  of  the  sort,  nor  was  it  accepted  by 
later  writers.30  But  the  words  of  Acilius  do  not  necessarily  point 
to  Faunus  as  the  god  of  the  Lupercalia.  He  does  not  go  on  to  say, 
as  we  might  expect,  that  upon  recovery  of  the  cattle  the  Lupercalia 


56  The  Lupercalia 

was  instituted  in  honor  of  Faunus.  He  says,  instead,  that,  because 
Romulus  cast  aside  his  garments  to  gain  speed  in  running,  the 
Luperci  are  now  naked  when  they  race  about  the  city.  The  point 
of  the  story,  therefore,  is  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  race  and  its 
ritualistic  nakedness.  Faunus  seems  to  be  mentioned  merely 
because  he  was  a  natural  god  to  invoke  in  seeking  the  lost  cattle. 
The  Lupercalia  certainly  must  have  meant  more  to  the  people  than 
a  festival  for  the  protection  of  the  flocks.  Centuries  after  the  urban 
populace  of  Rome  had  lost  all  interest  in  the  raising  of  cattle,  the 
Lupercalia  continued.  The  impassioned  denunciation  of  Pope 
Gelasius  shows  how  vital  it  was  as  late  as  450  A.  D.S1 

As  god  of  the  herds  and  incarnate  in  the  goat,  Faunus,  together 
with  his  doubles  Incubo  and  Inuus,32  was  the  giver  of  fertility.33 
That  is  another  reason  frequently  offered  for  associating  him  with 
the  Lupercalia.  But  there  is  no  suggestion  that  Faunus  gave  to 
the  thongs  carried  by  the  Luperci  their  life-giving  potency.  That 
was  due,  according  to  legend,  to  another  deity  of  goat-form, 
Juno.34 

Many  scholars  connect  Faunus  with  the  Lupercalia  through  the 
medium  of  Evander,  whom  they  regard  as  a  Hellenized  Faunus, 
manufactured  by  ancient  scholars  to  explain  the  existence  in  Rome 
of  a  cult  very  like  that  of  Lycaean  Pan.35  But  Evander  seems  to  be 
something  more  than  a  scholarly  fabrication.  He  is  strongly  localized 
in  Arcadia,  appearing  in  Tegea,  in  Parrhasion,  in  Pheneos,  near 
Messenia,  and,  most  frequently  of  all,  in  Pallanteum,  where  there 
was  in  the  temple  of  Demeter  a  statue  of  Evander.36  Thus  Evander 
seems  to  have  been  a  local  deity.  His  cult  in  Arcadia  is  believed  to 
have  antedated  Roman  times.37  The  constant  association  of 
Evander  with  Pan,  and  the  belief  that  Evander,  like  Pan,  was  the 
son  of  Hermes,38  indicates  that  he  belonged  to  Pan's  circle.39 
Evander  may  have  been  an  obscure  local  god,  later  absorbed  by 
Pan,  or  his  name  may  have  been  a  cult- title  which  attained  a  vague 
individuality.  He  was  recognized  by  the  Romans  as  a  deity,  for  we 
hear  of  sacrifices  offered  to  him  and  a  shrine  in  his  honor  on  the 
Aventine.40  We  must,  therefore,  account  for  Evander  and  his 
connection  with  the  Lupercalia  on  other  grounds  than  as  a  mere 
double  of  Faunus. 

Evander  seems  to  have  been  transplanted  into  Italy  through  the 
activity  of  Alexandrian  scholars.  When  they  had  identified  Pan 


The  Sacred  Goat  in  Italy  57 

with  Faunus,  they  rationalized  Evander  into  the  exile  who  estab- 
lished the  cult  of  Pan,  or,  in  other  words,  of  Faunus,  in  Italy.  In 
this  way  only  was  he  known  to  the  earliest  annalists.41  There  we 
have  the  germ  of  the  Evander  legend.42  Other  details  were  soon 
added:  Evander  and  his  Arcadians  offered  an  easy  explanation  of 
the  Ligurians  who  had  dwelt  in  the  vicinity  of  Rome,43  the  chance 
likeness  of  the  names  Palatium  and  Pallanteum  giving  support  to 
this  idea.  Consequently  as  early  as  Fabius  Pictor  we  find  the  tale 
of  Evander's  hamlet  on  the  Palatine.44  Ultimately  Evander  was 
made  to  typify  the  whole  stream  of  Greek  civilization  which,  as 
early  as  the  regal  period,  influenced  Rome  so  profoundly.  He  was 
accordingly  said  to  have  been  the  one  who  had  brought  to  the 
Romans  the  alphabet  and  the  arts  of  civilization.43  Pliny  was 
content  to  say  that  the  service  was  performed  by  the  Pelasgians.46 
The  mention  of  the  alphabet  draws  our  attention  at  once  to  Cumae, 
whence  in  all  probability  the  knowledge  of  writing  was  brought  to 
Rome.  Furthermore,  Evander  was  said  to  have  imported  the  gods 
whom  the  traders  of  Cumae  and  of  southern  Italy  introduced  into 
Rome  in  early  days,  Heracles,  Demeter,  Hermes,  Castor  and 
Pollux.47  The  tale  that  Evander  was  guided  to  Rome  by  Apollo48 
points  again  to  Cumae,  the  seat  of  Apollo's  worship,  and  the  active 
force  in  the  Hellenizing  of  Roman  religion.  Evander  is  the  poetic 
figure  typifying  that  activity.49 

Ancient  scholars  went  still  further  and  made  Evander  the  founder 
of  certain  Roman  cults,  those  of  Victory,  Consus,  and  Carmenta. 
The  latter,  ancient  Roman  goddess  though  she  was,  was  made  the 
mother  of  Arcadian  Evander.50  Once  recognized  as  the  bringer  of 
ancient  cults,  Evander  almost  inevitably  became  the  founder  of  the 
Lupercalia,  akin  as  it  was  to  the  Arcadian  Lycaea.51  But  Evander 
was  said  to  have  established  the  Lupercalia,  not  because  he  was  a 
double  of  Faunus,  but  because  he  wished  to  honor  his  native  god 
Pan  Lycaeus.  All  the  writers  make  this  explicit.52 

We  do  not  find,  therefore,  in  the  cult  or  the  attributes  of  Faunus, 
nor  yet  in  his  connection  with  Evander,  a  valid  reason  for  accepting 
him  as  the  god  of  the  Lupercalia. 

The  goat-Juno  had  a  far  more  vital  association  with  the  Luper- 
calia than  had  Faunus.  She,  like  Faunus,  was  primarily  the  giver 
of  fertility.  But  she  was  honored  by  cults  which  offered  a  marked 
correspondence  to  the  Lupercalia,  and  she  was  even  connected  with 


58  The  Lupercalia 

that  festival  by  legend  and  by  title.53  In  the  study  of  Juno,  therefore, 
we  shall  seek  an  explanation  of  the  goat-element  in  the  Lupercalia, 

Very  significant  for  our  purpose  is  the  cult  of  Juno  Sospita,  of 
Lanuvium.  That  town,  which  was  devoted  to  a  religion  of  the  most 
ancient  type,  venerated  Juno  Sospita  as  the  oldest  of  all  its  deities. 
Her  cult  was,  in  fact,  the  most  famous  of  all  the  Juno-cults  in 
Latium.54  Juno  Sospita  was  a  warrior  goddess,  as  was  the  earth- 
mother  of  Crete.55  The  goat  regularly  furnished  a  part  of  Juno's 
martial  equipment;  the  head,  with  the  horns  still  attached,  formed 
her  helmet,  and  the  skin  fell  down  her  back,  or  sometimes  over  her 
breast  like  the  aegis  worn  by  Athena.56  We  may  naturally  believe 
that  the  goat-skin  endowed  Juno  with  its  magic  power  of  protection 
from  harm.  This  Juno  of  Lanuvium  was  said  by  Cicero  to  be 
distinctly  different  from  the  Roman  Juno.57  Her  Ligurian  origin  is 
indicated  by  her  bearing  the  figure-eight  shield,  a  form  which  is 
characteristically  Mediterranean.58 

It  is  for  our  purpose  worthy  of  note  that  Juno  Sospita  was 
originally  embodied  in,  or  at  least  associated  with,  the  serpent,  a 
creature  belonging  to  a  still  more  ancient  religious  stratum  than  the 
goat.  Constantly  the  goddess  is  attended  by  a  serpent,59  which,  in 
a  story  told  by  Propertius,  is  all-important.  The  guardian  of  ancient 
Lanuvium,  he  says,  was  a  serpent.  Once  a  year  a  maiden  descended 
trembling  to  the  awesome  cavern  where  the  creature  dwelt,  and 
bore  to  it  an  offering  of  cakes.  If  the  maid  were  unchaste,  she  was 
instantly  devoured  by  the  monster;  but  if  she  were  pure,  the 
serpent  accepted  and  ate  the  gift  which  she  brought,  an  act  which 
was  hailed  by  the  farmers  as  the  omen  of  a  fruitful  year.60  This 
chthonic  serpent,  having  oracular  power,  merciless,  yet  giving 
bountiful  harvests,  is  a  typical  form  of  the  Mediterranean  earth- 
deity,  and  must  have  been  the  oldest  embodiment  of  Juno  Sospita. 
The  scene  described  by  Propertius  is  portrayed  on  a  coin  which 
bears  on  the  obverse  the  head  of  Juno  wearing  her  goat-skin  helmet,61 
thus  showing  the  union  of  the  two  conceptions  of  the  goddess. 

The  cult  of  Juno  Sospita  gives  us  a  parallel  of  what  may  have 
occurred  in  the  evolution  of  the  Lupercalia.  In  the  one  festival 
the  wolf,  in  the  other  the  equally  primitive  serpent  was  worshipped ; 
but  as  the  goat-god  gained  influence  among  the  shepherd  folk  of 
Latium,  both  wolf  and  serpent  were  thrust  into  the  background. 
Juno  Sospita  arrogated  to  herself  a  share  of  the  goat's  power  by 


The  Sacred  Goat  in  Italy  59 

wearing  its  skin;  in  the  Lupercalia  the  priests  of  the  wolf-god 
did  the  same,  and  also  carried  strips  of  the  goat-skin,  which  con- 
veyed to  the  people  its  magic  potency.  Thus  in  each  case  the  goat- 
cult  seems  to  have  been  grafted  upon  a  more  ancient  worship. 

The  veneration  of  Juno  Sospita  became  important  in  Rome  when, 
at  the  close  of  the  Latin  War,  Rome  stipulated  that  she  should 
share  on  equal  terms  in  the  cult  at  Lanuvium.62  A  temple  to  Juno 
Sospita  was  built  in  Rome  in  194  B.  C.,  the  same  year  in  which 
temples  were  dedicated  to  two  other  goat-deities,  Faunus  and 
Veiovis.63  This  interest  in  the  primitive  goat-gods  is  characteristic 
of  that  period,  for  during  the  war  with  Hannibal  and  the  years 
immediately  afterward  the  terror  of  the  people  caused  them  to 
turn  to  many  chthonic  gods  as  a  means  of  succor.64 

Rome  itself  was  the  site  of  another  goat-cult,  that  of  Juno  Capro- 
tina.  In  her  ritual  the  element  of  blows  was  very  prominent.  As 
the  blows  dealt  by  the  Luperci  were  the  most  noted  feature  of  the 
Lupercalia,  we  shall,  before  beginning  the  study  of  Juno  Caprotina, 
examine  the  use  of  blows  in  other  cults  of  Greece  and  of  Rome. 

In  Greece  the  religious  stratum  to  which  that  rite  belongs  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  Arcadia  affords  the  greatest  number  of 
instances.65  A  detailed  study  of  the  use  of  blows  has  been  made 
by  Dr.  Mannhardt;65  he  cites  numerous  cases  in  which  the  blows, 
being  directed  against  a  person  or  a  statue  which  represents  either 
a  deity  or  some  power  of  fertility  or  of  evil,  are  designed  to  drive 
out  evil  or  to  rouse  the  latent  power  of  a  god  by  freeing  him  from 
some  nullifying  influence.  Though  similar  to  the  blows  which 
smote  the  statue  of  Fauna,66  they  are  not  typical  of  those  delivered 
in  the  Lupercalia,  where  it  was  the  worshippers  who  were  struck. 
Other  rites  afford  a  closer  parallel:  at  an  Arcadian  festival  to 
Dionysus  the  women  celebrating  it  were  smitten;67  at  another 
Arcadian  ceremony,  in  honor  of  Demeter,  the  worshippers  struck 
one  another  with  twisted  bark;68  the  mysteries  of  Eleusis  included, 
as  a  means  of  purification,  a  mock  fight  in  which  the  celebrants 
hurled  stones  at  one  another;69  and  the  Spartans,  in  honor  of 
Artemis  Orthia,  practiced  a  rite  in  which  youths  often  died  under 
the  lash.70  The  deities  of  all  these  ceremonies  were  chthonic.  In 
every  case,  Professor  Reinach  believes,  the  blows  served  to  purify 
the  worshipper  and  to  act  as  a  fertility-charm.71 

We  are  now  ready  to  interpret  the  ritualistic  significance  of  the 


60  The  Lupercalia 

blows  in  the  festival  of  Juno  Caprotina,  which  occurred  on  the 
Nones  of  July.  At  the  Caprae  Palus,  in  the  Campus  Martius, 
the  women  of  Latium,  together  with  the  female  slaves,  exchanged 
taunts  and  threw  stones  at  one  another  in  a  sort  of  mock  battle. 
Then,  under  a  wild  fig-tree — or  goat-fig,  the  caprificus — they  feasted 
and  paid  homage  to  Juno  Caprotina,  offering  her  the  milky  juice 
of  the  tree.72  Varro  says  that  they  cut  branches  from  this  tree,73 
a  statement  which  it  is  tempting  to  associate  with  the  sham  battle, 
as  indicating  that  the  women  belabored  one  another  with  these 
switches  as  a  fertility  charm.74  We  have  no  direct  statement  to 
this  effect;  yet  the  prominence  in  the  ceremony  of  the  goat  and 
the  caprificus,  which  was  also  an  emblem  of  fertility,75 give  us  good 
reason  to  believe  that  the  purpose  of  the  rite  was  to  increase  pro- 
ductivity. 

Preliminary  to  this  festival  was  the  Poplifugia,  which  occurred 
either  on  the  same  day  or  two  days  earlier.76  Its  distinctive  feature 
was  a  hasty  and  disorderly  flight  of  the  people  away  from  the  Caprae 
Palus.77  Legend  told,  in  explanation  of  this  rite,  that,  when 
Romulus  was  holding  a  lustratio  of  the  citizens,  he  disappeared 
during  a  sudden  storm,  and  the  people  fled  in  terror.78  Following 
the  suggestion  of  this  legend,  Schwegler  interpreted  the  Poplifugia 
as  a  lustral  rite.79  This  view  has  won  considerable  favor.80  As 
a  lustral,  or  expiatory  ceremony,  the  Poplifugia  is  wholly  intelli- 
gible. Dr.  Fowler  compares  it  with  the  Bouphonia,  which  we  have 
already  examined,81  and  conjectures  that  the  priest  and  the  people 
at  Rome  may  have  fled  after  some  similar  sacrifice,  and  for  the 
same  reason.  Such  a  rite,  he  notes,  was  especially  appropriate 
in  July,  at  the  beginning  of  the  unhealthy  season,  when  the  people 
were  seeking  to  protect  themselves  from  evil  powers.82  That 
protection  gained,  they  were  ready  to  receive  the  gift  of  fertility 
by  the  celebration  of  the  Caprotine  Nones. 

If  this  interpretation  is  correct,  the  Poplifugia  and  Nonae  Cap- 
rotinae  are  similar  to  the  Lupercalia  both  in  meaning  and  in  ritual 
acts.83  Each  festival  occurred  at  a  time  of  year  when  the  powers 
of  evil  were  abroad;  each  had  a  ritual  flight  and  blows  as  a  promi- 
nent feature.  At  the  Lupercalia  was  sacrificed  a  goat,  which  was 
the  sacred  animal  of  Juno  Caprotina.  The  rite  of  the  Nonae 
Caprotinae  was  celebrated  under  a  caprificus;  and  hard  by  the 
Lupercal  was  another  ancient  and  venerated  fig-tree,  the  Ficus 


The  Sacred  Goat  in  Italy  61 

Ruminalis.  Is  it  possible  that  any  of  the  cult  acts  of  the  Lupercalia 
were  suggested  by  the  ancient  festival  of  Juno  at  the  Caprae  Palus? 

According  to  the  legends,  the  blows  of  the  goat-skin  did  not 
become  a  part  of  the  Lupercalia  until  after  the  Romans  had  united 
with  the  Sabines,  when  an  addition  was  made  to  the  ceremony 
under  the  influence  of  Juno  Lucina.  She,  like  Juno  Caprotina, 
was  a  goddess  of  fecundity.84  Her  sacred  grove  on  the  Esquiline 
was  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  venerated  shrines  in  the  whole 
city.85  To  this  grove,  Ovid  says,  Romulus  and  his  people  repaired 
for  help  when  their  Sabine  wives  proved  unfruitful.  As  they  bent 
in  supplication  before  the  shrine,  there  came  from  the  depths 
of  the  forest  the  strange  words,  "Let  the  sacred  goat  enter  into 
the  Italian  women."  Thereupon  an  Etruscan  augur  slew  a  goat, 
cut  the  hide  into  pieces,  and  bade  the  women  submit  to  blows  from 
the  strips.  Thus  their  curse  of  barrenness  was  removed,  and 
thanks  were  given  to  Juno  Lucina.86  To  have  any  point,  this 
story  must  be  based  upon  cult-practices,  or  at  least  upon  a  recol- 
lection of  them,  employed  at  the  shrine  of  Juno  Lucina.  Evidently 
she  had  availed  herself,  as  did  her  sister  of  Lanuvium,  of  the  life- 
giving  power  of  the  goat-skin,  and  by  blows  from  it  assured  to 
her  devotees  the  hope  of  children. 

Ovid  tells  this  story  at  the  conclusion  of  his  account  of  the 
Lupercalia,  in  which,  by  a  series  of  questions,  he  clearly  suggests 
the  development  of  the  festival.  He  begins,  "Tell  me,  ye  Muses, 
what  was  the  origin  of  this  sacred  rite?"  and  replies  that  it  was 
founded  by  Evander  in  honor  of  Pan.87  Ovid  then  inquires  what 
caused  the  race:  "Why  do  the  Luperci  run  naked?"  and  tells  in 
answer  the  story  of  Romulus  and  Remus  pursuing  the  lost  cattle.88 
He  then  explains  the  names  Lupercal  and  Lupercalia  by  telling 
of  the  rescue  of  Rumulus  and  Remus  by  the  wolf.89  About  the  rite 
of  the  blows,  Ovid  says  to  a  young  wife:  "Oh  bride,  why  are  you 
waiting?  Not  by  potent  herbs,  nor  by  prayers,  nor  by  magic 
incantations  shall  you  become  a  mother.  Receive  with  patience 
the  blows  of  the  fecund  hide,  and  your  husband's  father  shall  become 
a  grand  si  re."90  Thus  Ovid  introduces  the  fourth  point  in  his 
description  of  the  Lupercalia — the  use  and  the  power  of  the  goat- 
skin. He  explains  that  point  by  telling  the  story  given  above  of 
Romulus's  visit  to  the  shrine  of  Juno  Lucina.  In  this  tale,  Ovid 
follows  the  same  version  as  Livy  and  Servius,  who  also  state  that 


62  The  Lupercalia 

Romulus  initiated  the  rite  of  blows  in  order  to  free  the  Sabine 
women  from  barrenness.91 

As  the  narration  of  an  actual  fact,  Ovid's  tale  is  worthless;  but 
as  an  indication  of  kinship  between  the  festivals  of  Juno  and  the 
Lupercalia,  and  of  a  possible  early  transference  of  cult-practices, 
it  is  illuminating.  It  is  in  accord  with  what  we  have  seen  in  Greek 
religion  that  the  cult  of  the  wolf-god  should  have  been  in  time 
partially  overlaid  by  the  ritual  of  the  goat-god.  Since  the  Luper- 
calia and  the  ceremonials  of  Juno  had,  as  we  have  seen,  many  points 
of  likeness,  it  would  have  been  very  natural  for  the  Romans  to 
seek  to  make  their  goat-sacrifice  more  potent  by  adding  to  it  the 
practices  of  the  near-by  shrines  of  Juno. 

If  such  was  the  development  of  the  festival,  the  change  did  not 
obliterate  the  original  ceremonial,  but  brought  into  more  direct 
contact  with  the  people  the  potency  of  the  sacrificial  goat:  the 
Luperci  now  wore  girdles  cut  from  the  skin  of  the  victim,  and 
carried  in  their  hands  strips  of  the  same  skin,  with  which  they 
smote  the  women.92  Hence  their  race  about  the  city  no  longer 
seemed  a  lustral  flight,  but  a  means  of  carrying  fertility  to  the 
people.  The  old  ceremonial  was  thus  overlaid  by  the  new  ritual. 
The  ancient  cult-acts  continued,  but  their  meaning  was  largely 
changed.93 

The  fundamental  character  of  Juno  would  have  made  it  very 
natural  for  her  to  win  a  place  in  the  Lupercalia,  for  she  was  in 
essence  and  in  origin  closely -akin  to  Luperca.  Juno  was,  Varro 
tells  us,94  "the  earth,"  hence  she  was  merely  another  form  of  that 
chthonic  power  which  was  also  embodied  in  the  wolf.  But,  whereas 
the  \volf  early  sank  to  a  secondary  role,  Juno  became  highly  honored 
through  the  whole  of  central  Italy,  and,  in  her  triumphant  progress, 
must  have  assimilated  many  deities  like  herself,  but  less  powerful. 
Such  was  the  fate  of  Valeria  Luperca.  Juno's  invasion  of  the  Luper- 
calia, therefore,  is  merely  a  characteristic  incident  of  her  career. 

The  month  in  which  the  Lupercalia  was  celebrated,  February, 
was  sacred  to  the  chthonic  gods,95  among  others,  to  Juno.96  Juno 
was  also  associated  with  February,  the  month  of  purification,  by 
her  title  of  Februata,  "the  Purifier".97  The  goat-skin  thongs  with 
which  the  Luperci  gave  fertility  to  the  people  were  also  thought 
of  as  a  means  of  purification,  and  were  called  amicula  Junonis.9* 
That  name,  surely,  gives  the  clearest  possible  evidence  of  Juno's 


The  Sacred  Goat  in  Italy  63 

place  in  the  Lupercalia.  Yet  many  scholars  are  content  to  say 
that  the  thongs  were  so  named  because  the  festival  was  of  especial 
concern  to  women,  and  that  Juno  was  a  goddess  of  women.  Paulus 
leaves  room  for  no  such  vague  connection  as  that.  He  says  out- 
right that  the  Lupercalia  was  the  festival  of  Juno  Februata.98 

When  searching  for  a  possible  connection  of  Faunus  with  the 
Lupercalia,  we  found  nothing  in  the  legends  concerning  that  god, 
in  his  cult,  or  in  his  character,  which  was  significant  enough  to 
allow  us  to  associate  with  him  the  goat  element  of  the  Lupercalia. 
In  the  case  of  Juno,  on  the  contrary,  legend  attributed  to  her 
command  the  blows  with  the  goat-skin,  and  the  thongs  were  called 
"Juno's  thongs".  The  Lupercalia  was  the  most  important  puri- 
ficatory rite  among  the  Romans,  and  Juno,  with  the  title  Februata, 
was  a  goddess  of  purification.  The  month  in  which  the  Lupercalia 
occurred  was  sacred  to  Juno,  and  the  Lupercalia  itself  was  called 
Juno's  festival.  Upon  this  evidence,  we  conclude  that  Juno  won 
for  herself  a  place  in  the  ritual  of  Lupercus,  and  grafted  upon  that 
ancient  rite  a  ceremony  that  was  distinctively  her  own. 

The  goat-deities  in  Italy  seem  to  have  been  a  product  of  the 
Ligurians,  and  played  a  r61e  similar  to  that  of  the  Pelasgian  goat- 
gods.  In  each  country  the  ritual  of  the  goat  often  found  a  place 
in  other  cults,  and  imprinted  its  own  peculiar  stamp  upon  them. 
Thus  it  influenced  the  Lupercalia,  which,  in  its  original  form  as  a 
rite  to  the  wolf-deity,  was  apotropaic,  being  designed  to  ward  off 
the  powers  of  evil,  and  emphasizing  the  negative  power  of  the  earth- 
spirit.  The  goat-god,  on  the  other  hand,  was  especially  the  giver 
of  fertility;  hence  his  cult  stressed  the  positive  side  of  the  earth- 
spirit.  Therefore  with  the  incorporation  into  the  Lupercalia  of 
the  goat's  fructifying  power,  the  festival  had  a  twofold  function: 
to  protect  the  people  from  evil,  and  to  set  free  the  forces  of  fertility. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VI 

1.  Ov.,  Fast.,  3.  443;  Cell.,  5.  12.  12. 

2.  Wissowa,  R.  K.,  238. 

3.  Dionys.,  I.  43;   Suet.,  Vitell.,  I.  i;   Cell.,  5.21.  7;   Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8. 

314- 

4.  Dr.  Pais  (Anc.  Leg.,  63-80)  has  shown  in  detail  the  identity  of  these  deities. 

See  also  Fowler,  R.  -P.,  74. 

5.  Macr.,  i.  12.  23,  24. 


64  The  Lupercalm 

6.  Verg.,  Aen.,  7.  81;  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  7.  47,  81;  Prob.  ad  Verg.,  Georg., 

1.  10;  Just.,  43.  i.  8;   Isid.,  Orig.,  8.  II.  87. 

7.  Corp.  Gloss.,  v,  198.  19,  20;  Otto,  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  vi,  2058. 

8.  Prob.  ad  Verg.,  Georg.,  i.  10. 

9.  Wissowa,  R.  K.,  213;   Fowler,  R.  F.,  258. 
ID.  Ap.  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  275. 

11.  N.  D.,  3.  15. 

12.  Vitr.,  3.  2.  3. 

13.  Fowler,  R.  F.,  258. 

14.  Wernicke,  in  Roscher,  iii,  1407. 

15.  Schwegler,  i,  232  n.  27;  Preller,  i,  380;  Mommsen,  H.  R.,  i,  208;  Wissowa, 
R.  K.,  210-12.    Marquardt  (iii,  439)  identifies  Lupercus  with  Faunus.    Lupercus 
is  regarded  as  an  epithet  of   Faunus   by  Otto    (in    Pauly-Wissowa,    vi,    2056), 
Roscher  (i,  1455),  and  Hild  (in  Daremberg-Saglio,  iii,   1399).     Dr.  Fowler,  how- 
ever, does  not  believe  that  Faunus  was  the  deity  of  the  Lupercalia  (R.  F.,  313, 
Roman  Ideas  of  Deity,  94). 

16.  Just.,  43.  i.  7. 

17.  Just.,  43.  I.  7.    Though  Justin  mentions  Faunus  in  the  sections  immediately 
before  and  immediately  after  the  one  cited,  he  speaks  of  him  only  as  the  king  of 
Italy  who  welcomed  Evander. 

18.  Ov.,  Fast. ,2.  193. 

19.  In  this  explanation,  I  have  closely  followed  Dr.  Warde  Fowler  (R.  F.,  258). 

20.  Hor.,  Od.,  3.  1 8,  omnis. 

21.  Roscher,  i,  1455. 

22.  Arnob.,  adv.  Gent.,  5.  18;   Lact.,  de  Fals.  Relig.,  i.  22.  i;   Macr.,  i.  12.  25. 

23.  Vitr.,  8.  3.  2;  Verg.,  Aen.,  7.  81;  Ov.,  Fast.,  4.  649-66;  Plut.,  Num.,  15; 
Prob.  ad  Verg.,  Georg.,  i.  10;  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  7.  81;  Isid.,  Orig.,  8.  n.  87; 
Corp.  Gloss.,  v,  199.  15,  1 6. 

24.  Ov.,  Fast.,  3.  291;  Plut.,  Num.,  15. 

25.  Porphyr.  ad  Hor.,  Od.,  3.  18.  13. 

26.  See  the  authorities  cited  in  note  15. 

27.  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  343. 

28.  See  p.  37. 

29.  Ap.  Plut.,  Rom.,  21. 

30.  Ovid's  use  of  the  name  Faunus  as  the  equivalent  of  Pan  Lycaeus  has  already 
been  considered  (see  p.  38). 

31.  Gelas.,  adv.  Androm.,  in  Corp.  Script.  Eccles.  Lat.,  xxxv,  453-64. 

32.  Wissowa,  R.  K.,  211. 

33.  Rutil.  Nam.,  i.  234;   Isid.,  Orig.,  8.  n.  103,  104;  Hieron.  ad  Is.,  i.  13.  21. 

34.  See  p.  61. 

35.  Marquardt,  iii,  439;    Preller,  i,  387;    Roscher,  ii,  2822;    Schwegler.  i,  354. 

36.  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  51;    Ov.,  Fast.,  i.  545;    Liv.,  i.  5.  i;    Dionys.,  i.  60.  3; 

2.  1.3;   Paus.,  8.  43.  2;   8.  44.  5;   Plut.,  Philop.,  18. 

37.  De  Sanctis,  Storia  dei  Romani,  i,  191. 

38.  Dionys.,  2.  i.  3;    Paus.,  8.  43.  2;   Tzetzes,  ad  Lycoph.,  772. 

39.  Robert,  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  vi,  839-40. 


The  Sacred  Goat  in  Italy  65 

40.  Dionys.,  I.  32.  2. 

41.  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Georg.,  i.  10. 

42.  Lubkers,  Reallexikon  des  klassischen  Altertums,  348;  Fowler,  R,  F.t  258  n.  i. 

43.  De  Sanctis,  i,  192. 

44.  Dionys.,  i.  79.    See  also  i.  31,  89. 

45.  Liv.,  i.  7.  8;    Dionys.,  I.  33.  4;    Tac.,  Ann.,  n.  14;    Mar.  Viet.,  G.  L., 
vi,  23.  14;  vi,  194.  16. 

46.  N.  H.,  7.  193. 

47.  Liv.,  i.  7.  3;   Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  102;   Dionys.,  i.  33;   Fest.,  269. 

48.  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  336. 

49.  Schwegler,  i,  359;    Preller,  ii,  341. 

50.  Liv.,  i.  7.  8;  Ov.,  Fast.,  i.  479-500;  Dionys.,  i.  32,  33;  Paul,  ex  Fest.,  101. 

51.  See  p.  46  n.  88. 

52.  Liv.,  i.  5;  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  344;  Dionys.,  i.  79. 

53.  Seep.  61. 

54.  Ihm,  in  Roscher,  ii,  595;   Wissowa,  R.  K.,  188. 

55.  Graillot,  4. 

56.  Daremberg-Saglio,  iii,  Fig.  4185-88;    Roscher,  ii,  Fig.  on  pp.  606-9. 

57.  N.  D.,  i.  82. 

58.  Daremberg-Saglio,  iii,  Fig.  4186,  4188;   Mackenzie,  Crete,  159-60. 

59.  Daremberg-Saglio,  iii,  Fig.  4186,  4188;    Roscher,  ii,  Fig.  on  pp.  608,  609. 

60.  Prop.,  4.  8.  3-14. 

61.  Daremberg-Saglio,  iii,  Fig.  4187. 

62.  Liv.,  8.  14. 

63.  Liv.,  32.  30.  10;  34.  53.  3. 

64.  For  a  survey  of  this  period,  see  p.  87-9. 

65.  Mannhardt,  Myth.  Forsch.,  113-40. 

66.  See  p.  55. 

67.  Paus.,  8.  23.  i. 

68.  Hesych.,  MOPOTTOV. 

69  Mannhardt,  Myth.  Forsch.,  209. 

70.  Paus.,  3.  16.  7. 

71.  Cultes,  i,  180-3.    This  view  is  also  expressed  by  Farnell,  (v,  163),  and  by 
Jevons  (Hist.  Rel.,  appendix  to  ch.  24). 

72.  Polem.  Silv.,  C.  I.  L.,  i,  269;  Van,  L.  L.,  6.  18;  Plut.,  Rom.,  29;  id.  Cam., 
33;  Auson.  ds  Per.,  9;   Macr.,  i.  n.  36,  40. 

73.  Van,  L.  L.,  6.  18. 

74.  Fowler,  R.  F.,  179;    Frazer,  ii,  317. 

75.  Schwegler,  i,  234;  Frazer,  ii,  317. 

76.  Plut.,  Rom.,  29;    Gilbert,  i,  291;    Hild,   in   Daremberg-Saglio,   iv,   579. 

77.  Van,  L.  L.,  6.  18. 

78.  Liv.,  I.  16;   Dionys.,  2.  56;   Plut.,  Rom.,  29;  id.  Cam.,  33. 

79.  R.  G.,  i,  532-5. 

80.  It  is  accepted  by  Gilbert  (i,  290),  by  Marquardt  (iii,  325),  and  by  Fowler 
(R.  F.,  175-6). 

81.  See  p.  23. 


66  The  Lupercalia 

82.  R.  F.,  176. 

83.  The  similarity  of  ritual  acts  between  these  two  festivals  and  the  Lupercalia 
has  been  noted  by  Schwegler  (i,  533),  by  Hild  (in  Daremberg-Saglio,  iv,  579), 
and  by  Ihm  (in  Roscher,  ii,  599). 

84.  Hild,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  iii,  685. 

85.  Van,  L.  L.t  5.  49;  Preller,  i,  273. 

86.  Ov.,  Fast.,  2.  429-49. 

87.  Fast.,  2.  269-79. 

88.  .Fa^.,  2.  283-380.    See  also  p.  46  n.  91. 

89.  Fast.,  2.  381-422. 

90.  Fast.,  2.  425. 

91.  Liv.  ap.  Gelas.,  adv.  Androm.,  12;  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.,  8.  343. 

92.  Plutarch  (Rom.,  21)  and  Valerius  Maximus  (2.  2.  9)  say  that  the  Luperci 
smote  all  whom  they  met.    This  may  well  have  been  the  original  practice;  but, 
since  the  rite  had  especial  significance  for  women,  they  were  often  thought  of  as 
the  only  celebrants. 

93.  It  is  quite  possible  that  at  this  time  the  stoning  of  the  Luperci  (see  pp. 
40,  41)  was  discontinued.    Since  the  race  of  the  priests  seems  now  directed  wholly 
toward  the  gift  of  fertility,  the  act  of  stoning  no  longer  has  any  point. 

94.  L.  L.,  5.  65,  67. 

95.  Lyd.,  de  Mens.,  4.  25;  Macr.,  i.  13.  7;  Solin.,  i.  40. 

96.  Lyd.,  de  Mens.,  4.  25.    Wissowa  (R.  K.,  185)  remarks  on  the  significance 
of  the  dedication  days  of  Juno's  temples,  the  one  in  the  Forum  Holitorium  being 
dedicated  on  the  first  of  February,  and  the  one  to  Juno  Lucina  on  the  first  of 
March.    Wissowa  considers  it  more  than  a  coincidence  that  these  two  dedication 
days  fell  on  the  two  Kalends  that  were  nearest  to  the  Lupercalia. 

97.  Paul,  ex  Fest.,  85;  Mart.  Cap.,  2.  149. 

98.  Paul,  ex  Fest.,  85. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  DOG  AS  A  SACRED  ANIMAL  IN  GREECE 

One  of  the  features  of  the  Lupercalia  which  has  aroused  the 
greatest  amount  of  scholarly  speculation  is  the  use  of  a  dog  as 
sacrificial  victim.  Such  a  sacrifice  was  very  unusual,  both  in  Italy 
and  in  Greece.  A  survey  of  the  places  in  which  it  was  employed 
and  the  interpretation  which  was  given  to  it  will  assist  us  to  under- 
stand its  significance  in  the  Lupercalia. 

Even  in  Pelasgian  times  the  dog  seems  to  have  been  venerated 
as  a  sacred  animal  in  certain  parts  of  the  Aegean  world.  Because 
of  the  frequent  occurrence  of  the  figure  of  a  dog  on  the  hieroglyphic 
seals  of  Crete,  Sir  Arthur  Evans  believes  that  the  dog  was  sacred 
to  the  Minoan  goddess,1  though  it  was  one  of  the  less  important 
of  the  many  animals  that  were  attached  to  her.  At  a  later  period 
the  dog  made  his  way  into  the  Cretan  myths  of  Apollo.2  Cydonia 
was  said  to  have  been  founded  by  a  son  of  Apollo,  Cydon,  who, 
when  a  babe,  was  suckled  by  a  dog.3  This  legend  was  represented 
upon  the  coins  of  Cydonia.4  In  Phaestos,  too,  the  dog  was  asso- 
ciated with  Apollo,5  and  a  dog  appeared  upon  the  coins  of  Phaestos.6 
Similarly,  in  Caria,  Apollo  was  said  to  have  assumed  the  form  of 
a  dog  when  he  begot  Telmissus.7  The  dog  appears  also  in  the  later 
myths  of  Zeus,  who  was  said  to  have  been  guarded  in  his  infancy 
by  a  golden  dog  as  well  as  by  a  goat.8  In  another  account,  the 
nurse  of  Zeus  was  named  Cynosura.9 

In  Hellenic  times  the  deity  who  was  most  closely  associated 
with  the  dog  was  Hecate,10  of  Thrace.  Though  the  Thracians  of 
historical  times  were  probably  Aryans,  the  early  inhabitants  of 
the  land  were  Pelasgians.11  They  worshipped  the  characteristic 
earth-deity  of  the  Pelasgians,  and  profoundly  influenced  the  re- 
ligion of  the  invaders.12  Hecate  was  markedly  chthonic,13  and 
belonged  undoubtedly  to  an  ancient  religious  stratum.14  In  art 
and  in  literature  Hecate  is  constantly  represented  as  dog-shaped 
or  as  accompanied  by  a  dog.15  Her  approach  was  heralded  by  the 
howling  of  a  dog.16  The  dog  was  Hecate's  regular  sacrificial  animal, 
and  was  often  eaten  in  solemn  sacrament.17 

Plutarch  uses  two  words  which  give  the  dominant  characteristics 


68  The  Lupercalia 

of  Hecate:  x^ovLa  and  dTrorpoTrcua;18  that  is,  she  was  a  goddess 
of  the  underworld  and  of  purification.  At  the  crossroads,  which 
were  regularly  sacred  to  gods  of  the  lower  regions,  men  sought 
communication  with  Hecate.18  She  had  the  souls  of  the  dead  under 
her  especial  charge,19  and,  as  a  natural  result,  was  invoked  by  all 
who  worked  in  magic  and  witchcraft.20  Hecate's  lustral  power 
became  operative  chiefly  through  the  sacrifice  of  a  dog,  which, 
Plutarch  says,  nearly  all  the  Greeks  employed  as  a  means  of  puri- 
fication.18 Thus,  in  honor  of  Hecate,  slain  puppies  were  carried 
through  a  city,  and  were  used  to  strike  anyone  who  was  in  need 
of  cleansing.21  Among  the  Boeotians  and  the  Macedonians  a  dog 
was  cut  asunder,  and  persons  walked  between  the  parts.22 

Hecate  was  constantly  identified  by  the  Greeks  with  Artemis,23 
and  was  frequently  grouped  with  Demeter  and  with  other  primi- 
tive powers  of  vegetation,  such  as  Pan,  Dionysus,  Cybele,  and 
Priapus.  As  goddess  of  the  underworld,  she  was  naturally  asso- 
ciated with,  or  even  identified  with,  Hades  and  Persephone.24  The 
goddesses  of  women,  rcreruAXts,  and  EtXioma,  were  regarded  as 
very  similar  to  Hecate,  and  received  a  dog  in  sacrifice.25  As  a 
deity  of  purification,  Hecate  came  to  be  honored  in  the  Orphic 
Hymns  beyond  all  other  gods.26  Ultimately  the  cult  of  Hecate 
spread  throughout  the  Greek  world.27  Mysterious  and  alien  goddess 
that  she  was,  Hecate  appealed  to  the  imagination  as  one  who  could 
save  men  from  every  form  of  evil. 

It  was  a  natural  sequence  of  the  cult  of  Hecate,  or,  perhaps,  an 
independent  development  of  the  same  idea,  that  the  dog  became 
the  animal  in  whose  form  the  powers  of  the  underworld  especially 
appeared.  In  ancient  times  the  dead  were  thought  by  the  Greeks 
to  visit  the  earth  in  the  form  of  a  serpent,  but  later  they  were 
believed  to  assume  the  shape  of  a  dog  as  well.28  The  daemon  of 
Pestilence  too,  according  to  a  legend,  once  disguised  himself  as 
an  old  beggar;  but  when  the  beggar  had  been  stoned  to  death, 
it  was  a  Molossian  hound  that  lay  in  his  place.29  The  same  idea 
seems  the  basis  of  a  celebration  at  Argos,  in  which  on  a  certain 
day  in  the  hot  season  men  killed  all  the  dogs  that  they  met.30  The 
fact  that  every  dog  that  was  seen  was  killed  indicates  that  they 
were  not  lustral  offerings,  but  the  personification  of  pestilence. 

The  dog  was  prominent  in  the  cult  of  Aesculapius.  Certain 
legends  tell  that  when  a  babe  he  was  rescued  and  suckled  by  a 


The  Dog  as  a  Sacred  Animal  in  Greece  69 

dog.31  Statues  and  coins  show  him  accompanied  by  a  dog.32  At 
the  temples  of  Aesculapius,  dogs  were  in  attendance,  and  were 
believed  to  heal  the  sick  by  licking  them  with  their  tongues.33  In 
Athens  figurines  of  dogs  were  brought  as  votive  offerings  to  the 
Asklepeium,34  and  a  dog  was  said  to  have  protected  the  treasures 
there  from  theft.35 

The  worship  of  Aesculapius  originated  in  Thessaly,  which  at  a 
very  early  date  was  overrun  by  bands  from  Thrace.36  The  oldest 
sites  of  the  cult  were  in  the  original  seats  of  the  Lapiths,  the  Phlegyae, 
and  the  Minyae,37  who  were  all  pre-Aryans.38  Aesculapius  was  an 
earth-deity,  as  is  shown  by  his  oracular  power,  his  healing  art,  and 
the  cult-practices  at  his  shrines.39  In  his  cult,  the  power  of  the  dog 
to  ward  off. evil  became  limited  to  freeing  people  from  disease. 

In  a  few  sporadic  instances,  other  deities  had  the  dog  as  a  sacred 
animal.  To  the  Thracian  Ares  dogs  were  sacrificed  by  the  Carians 
and  the  Spartans.40  In  both  these  places  the  cult  was  a  Thracian 
product.  Caria  was  at  one  time  overrun  by  Phrygians  from  Thrace, 
and  the  cult  of  Hecate  was  deep-rooted  there.41  Sparta  seems  to 
have  gained  the  Ares  cult  from  Boeotia,  to  which  it  was  carried 
from  Thrace  in  pre-Hellenic  times.42 

The  Thracian  cult  of  the  dog  spread  even  to  Sicily.  Its  chief 
center  there  was  in  the  north-western  corner  of  the  island,  which, 
shortly  after  the  fall  of  Troy,  it  seems,  was  colonized  by  the  Ely- 
mians,  who  claimed  descent  from  either  the  Trojans  or  the  Phrygians. 
Dr.  Freeman,  after  an  acute  analysis  of  the  evidence  about  the 
origin  of  this  people  and  of  the  modern  theories  concerning  them, 
concludes  that  they  probably  came  from  Western  Asia  Minor, 
and  that  they  were  non-Hellenic,  but  had  evidently  been  in  early 
days  closely  connected  with  Hellas.43  All  this  seems  to  class  the 
Elymians  as  one  of  the  Pelasgian  peoples  of  Asia  Minor. 

Legend  explained  the  Elymian  settlements  in  Sicily  by  the 
story  that  when  Troy,  in  the  days  of  Laomedon,  was  harried  by  a 
sea  monster,  a  certain  Trojan  sought  to  save  his  daughters  from 
possible  sacrifice  to  the  monster  by  sending  them  to  Sicily.  When 
they  arrived  there  they  established,  in  gratitude,  a  temple  on  Mount 
Eryx  to  Aphrodite.  This  Aphrodite  is  called  by  Lycophron  "the 
Zerynthian  Mother."  44  Tzetzes  explains  that  she  was  the  Aphrodite 
of  Thrace  and  Zerynthus,  and  that  she  had  a  sacred  cave  on  Zeryn- 
thus.45  Inasmuch  as  this  island  was  famous  as  a  seat  of  Hecate's 


yo  The  Lupercalia 

worship,  Dr.  Freeman  believes  that  the  Zerynthian  Aphrodite 
was  merely  another  name  for  Hecate.46  At  any  rate,  the  dog  was 
sacred  to  Aphrodite  of  Eryx,  for  a  coin  issued  by  that  city  shows 
Aphrodite  on  one  side  and  a  hound  on  the  other.47 

The  veneration  which  the  Elymians  had  for  the  dog  appears 
also  in  the  legend  that  one  of  the  exiled  maidens,  named  Segesta, 
won  the  love  of  the  Sicilian  river-god  Crimisus,  and  that  he  visited 
her  in  the  form  of  a  dog.  By  him  she  became  the  mother  of  Agestes, 
who  founded  the  cities  of  Segesta,  Eryx,  and  Entella.48  This 
legend  figured  prominently  on  the  coins  of  the  Elymians.  Of 
twenty-five  coins  of  Segesta  which  are  listed  in  the  Hunterian 
collection,  all  except  two  represent  the  head  of  Segesta  on  one 
side  and  a  dog  on  the  other.49  Sometimes  the  dog  accpmpanies  a 
youthful  hunter.  Both  dog  and  hunter  are  interpreted  as  repre- 
sentations of  the  river  Crimisus.49  Other  symbols  that  often  appear 
on  the  coins  are  a  wheel,  a  grain-plant,  or  a  head  of  grain.  The 
latter  two  seem  to  indicate  that  in  Sicily  the  dog's  apotropaic 
power  was  enlisted  in  the  protection  of  the  crops.50 

The  cult  of  the  dog  early  appeared  in  the  eastern  part  of  Sicily 
as  well  as  in  the  western.  Coins  of  Syracuse,  some  of  which  were 
issued  before  500  B.  C.,  represent  a  dog.51  One  of  them  bears  on 
one  side  the  head  of  Apollo.  This  may  easily  be  an  echo  of  the 
Cretan  association  of  the  dog  with  Apollo,52  since  Syracuse  had 
close  connections  with  Crete,  even  in  Minoan  days-53  At  the  foot 
of  Mount  Etna  was  the  shrine  of  Adranos,  where  one  thousand 
dogs  were  kept.  They  were  the  guardians  of  the  temple,  guiding 
and  protecting  righteous  pilgrims,  but  driving  off  or  killing  the 
wicked.54  Adranos  is  interpreted  by  Dr.  Freeman  as  an  ancient 
fire-god  of  the  Siculi,  and  a  natural  product  of  the  volcanic  moun- 
tain.55 There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  Adranos  was  ever  thought 
of  as  dog-shaped,  nor  was  a  dog  sacrificed  to  him.  The  dog  had, 
therefore,  a  less  intimate  place  in  his  cult  than  in  those  of  the 
Elymian  deities,  and  was  probably  an  Aegean  importation  which 
was  grafted  upon  the  cult  of  the  Siculian  god.  By  the  days  of 
Timoleon,  Adranos  was  worshipped  through  all  Sicily;  accord- 
ingly, after  the  Mamertines  overran  North-Eastern  Sicily,  they  fre- 
quently represented  on  their  coins  the  head  of  Adranos  and  a  dog.56 

The  cult  of  the  dog  was  honored  among  the  Pelasgians  of  Crete 
and  of  Thrace,  but  had  its  chief  development  in  the  latter  place. 


The  Dog  as  a  Sacred  Animal  in  Greece  71 

From  there  is  spread  in  pre-Hellenic  days  through  Thessaly  and 
Boeotia,  and  ultimately  through  the  whole  Greek  peninsula.  Asia 
Minor,  too,  was  subjected  to  repeated  waves  of  Thracian  migration, 
so  that  there  the  cult  of  the  dog  came  to  be  highly  venerated.  The 
Elymians,  who  came  from  Asia  Minor,  carried  with  them  to  Sicily 
the  sacred  dog,  and  established  his  worship  in  their  new  home.  The 
dog  was  accepted  as  a  sacrificial  victim,  Plutarch  tells  us,57  by  none 
of  the  Olympian  gods.  To  the  Greeks  the  dog  always  remained 
an  animal  of  uncanny  power,  which,  when  offered  in  sacrifice, 
had  especial  potency  to  purify  and  to  ward  off  every  form  of  evil. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VII 

1.  Scr.  Min.,  208. 

2.  Whether  this  was  due  to  the  Minoan  reverence  of  the  dog  as  a  sacred  animal, 
or  to  the  later  spread  of  Hecate's  cult  to  Crete,  is  immaterial  for  our  purpose. 

3.  Stephanus,  av&wvia.;    Schol.  ad  Horn.,  Odyss.,  19.  176;    Stoll,  in   Roscher, 
ii,  1674. 

4.  Head,  Historia  Nummorum,  391-2. 

5.  Gruppe,  1446. 

6.  Head,  402. 

7.  Suidas,  TeXAUfftrcis. 

8.  Anton.  Lib.,  36. 

9.  Eratosth.,  2. 

10.  The  association  of  the  dog  with  Hecate  may  have  been  due,  wholly  or  in 
part,  to  the  influence  of  Persia,  where  the  dead  were  often  left  to  be  devoured 
by  dogs  (Herod.,  I.  140),  and  were  believed  to  be  guided  to  the  lower  world  by 
dogs  (Liebrecht,  23;   Gruppe,  407  n.  i). 

11.  Wace  and  Thompson,  Prehistoric   Thessaly,  253;  d'Arbois,  Les  premiers 
habitants  de  I' Europe,  i,  90-7;    Kretschmer,    173;     Pick,  99;    Farnell,  ii,   507. 
L.  J.  Myres  (A  History  of  the  Pelasgian  Theory,  J.  H.  S.,  xxvii,  173)  notes  that  in 
the  Homeric  catalogue  of  the  ships  the  dominant  folk  between  the  Hebrus  and  the 
Hellespont  were  not  Thracians,  but  Pelasgians.     Herodotus  (i.  57)  speaks  of  a 
village  in  Thrace  that  was  occupied  by  Pelasgians  who,  in  his  day,  still  spoke  the 
Pelasgian  language. 

12.  Tomaschek,  Die  alien  Thraker,  in  Sitzungsb.  d.  philos.  hist.  Cl.  d.  kais.  Akad. 
J.Mwew5cA.,Bd.cxxviii,Wien,i893,H2, 113;  Hall,  ^.£.,576;  Farnell, N.C.R., 29. 

13.  Hall,  0.  C.  G.  297;  Heckenbach,  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  vii,  2773. 

14.  Rohde,  ii.  80. 

15.  Nonnus  Dionysiacus,  3.  74;  Eustath.  ad  Horn.,  Odyss.,  p.  1714.  41 ;  Farnell, 
ii,  508. 

16.  Theocr.,  2.  35. 

17.  Plut.,  Q.  R.  52,  68,  in;  Schol.  ad  Theocr.,  2.  12;  Porphyr.,<fe  Abst.,  3.  17; 
Schol.    d  Aristoph.,  Pax,  276;    Suidas,  Zijpwdla  ^,0.^06  P&.KTJ. 


72  The  Lupercalia 

18.  Q.  R.,  in. 

19.  Ely.  Mag.,  626.  44;  Heckenbach,  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  vii,  2778. 

20.  Heeate  was  the  patron  deity  of  the  sorceress  Medea  (Ap.  Rhod.,  3.  841; 
Eur.,  Med.  395.    See  also,  Rohde,  ii,  75-87;   Gruppe,  1272  n.  i. 

21.  Plut.,  Q.  R.,  68,  in. 

22.  Plut.,  Q.  R.,  in;  Curt.,  10.  9.  12. 

23.  Serv.ad  Verg.,Aen.,  4.  511;  Gruppe,  1289;  Heckenbach,  in  Pauly-Wissowa, 
vii,  2770. 

24.  Gruppe,  1291  n.   i;  Heckenbach,  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  vii,  2770-3 ;  Farnell, 
ii,  512. 

25.  Plut.,  Q.  R.,  52;  Hesych.  TtveTv\\ls. 

26.  Dieterich,  De  hymnis  orphicis,  44. 

27.  Farnell,  ii,  502-8. 

28.  Gruppe,  410,   803-4.     The  dog  Cerberus    seems    to  have  been  a  late 
development  that  arose  from  the  peculiar  use  of  the  word  dog  in  the  sense  of 
servant.     See  Durbach,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  iii,  503;  Immisch,  in  Roscher,  ii, 

1133- 

29.  Philostratus,  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  4.  10. 

30.  Ael.,  N.  A.,  12.  34. 

31.  Paus.,  2.  64.  4;   Paul,  ex  Fest.,  no;  Lact.,  Div.  Inst.,  i.  10.  i. 

32.  Paus.,  2.  27.  2;    Head,  369. 

33.  Ath.  Mitth.,  vol.  xvii,  245.    Deubner,  De  incubatione,  39.    In  Epidaurus 
the  dog  was  largely  replaced  by  the  sacred  animals  of  that  region,  the  serpent 
and  the  goat  (Paus.,  2.  26.  4;  2.  27.  2). 

34.  Martha,  Cat.  Mus.  Ath.  No.  169-71. 

35.  Ael.,  N.  H.,  7.  13. 

36.  Wace  and  Thompson,  232. 

37.  Thraemer,  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  ii,  1643. 

38.  Hall,  N.  E.,  61.    See  p.  13  n.  4. 

39.  Gruppe,    1448;    Thraemer,  in   Roscher,   i,    626.    Although    Aesculapius 
appears  in  Homer,  he  seems  to  be  a  hero  rather  than  a  deity,  for  Homer  always 
speaks  of  him  as  Ajufyxooj/  (Thraemer,  in  Roscher,  i,  619). 

40.  Arnob. ,  4.  25. 

41.  Farnell,  ii,  506. 

42.  Farnell,  v,  403. 

43.  History  of  Sicily,  i,  195-220,  542-59. 

44.  Lycophr.,958. 

45.  Ad  Lycophr.,  449,  958. 

46.  Hist.  Sic.,  i,  548. 

47.  Macdonald,   Catalogue  of  Greek  Coins  in  the  Hunterian  Collection,   181; 
Evans,  Scr.  Min.,  208. 

48.  Lycophr.,  961;  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Aen.t  i.  550;    5.  30. 

49.  Hunterian  Collection,  212-16;   Head,  165. 

50.  Coins  of  the  Thracian  Chersonese  also  represent  a  dog  with  a  stalk  of 
barley  behind  him  (British  Museum.     Catalogue  of  Greek  coins.     Thrace,  197). 

51.  Hunterian  Collection,  235;  Head,  180. 

52.  Seep.  67. 


The  Dog  as  a  Sacred  Animal  in  Greece  73 


53.  Evans,  Scr.  Min.,  95. 

54.  Ael.,  H.  A.,  ii.  20;    11.3. 

55.  Hist.Sic.,  i,  183-8. 

56.  Head,  156. 

57.  Q.R.,  inC. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  DOG  AS  A  SACRED  ANIMAL  IN  ITALY 

Among  the  Romans  there  was  no  clearly  marked  center  of  the 
cult  of  the  dog,  as  there  was  in  Greece.  Moreover,  details  about 
the  few  dog-cults  which  are  found  in  Italy  are  scanty.  This  makes 
an  elucidation  of  the  sacrifice  of  a  dog  in  the  Lupercalia  very  difficult, 
and  we  cannot  hope  to  do  more  than  offer  a  reasonable  theory 
about  its  origin  and  significance,  based  upon  a  survey  of  the  other 
dog-cults  of  Italy  and  of  Greece. 

The  god  Silvanus  is  constantly  portrayed  in  art  with  a  dog  at 
his  side.1  Yet  the  dog  had  no  part  in  the  cult  of  Silvanus:  there  is 
no  indication  that  Silvanus  was  ever  thought  to  be  of  dog  form; 
a  dog  was  not  sacrificed  to  him,  nor  did  it  appear  in  any  of  the 
legends  about  him.  It  seems  probable,  therefore,  that  the  dog  was 
attached  to  Silvanus  because  of  an  art  convention:  just  as  a  dog 
was  regularly  represented  with  the  huntress  Diana,  so  Silvanus, 
the  guardian  of  the  boundaries  of  the  cultivated  land,  was  naturally 
accompanied  by  the  watchful  dog.2 

Dogs  were  able  to  see  the  Fauni.3  This  seems  due  to  the  wide- 
spread belief  in  the  uncanny  power  of  the  dog  to  discern  either 
ghosts  or  a  deity  who  was  invisible  to  men.4  There  is  nothing  in 
the  cult  or  the  attributes  of  Faun  us  to  indicate  that  the  dog  was 
sacred  to  him. 

Most  clearly  marked  of  the  cults  of  the  dog  was  the  sacrifice  of 
a  dog  at  the  Robigalia.  Robigus  was  the  dreaded  blight,  or  mildew, 
which  attacked  the  grain  while  it  was  forming  in  the  ear  and  caused 
it  to  turn  black  and  wither.5  Robigus  was,  therefore,  a  numen  who 
must  be  placated  in  order  to  avert  evil  from  the  crops.6  The 
Robigalia  was  established  in  early  times  7  in  order  to  ward  off 
this  destructive  blight.8  The  rite  being  apotropaic,  the  dog- 
sacrifice  had  the  same  significance  that  it  had  among  the  Greeks. 
We  remember  that  on  the  coins  of  Sicily  the  dog  often  appeared 
in  conjunction  with  a  sheaf  or  an  ear  of  grain,9  so  that  there,  too, 
it  may  have  been  thought  to  protect  the  grain  from  harm.  The 
officiating  priest  at  the  Robigalia  was  the  Flamen  Quirinalis,10 
a  fact  which  suggests  a  Sabine  origin.  The  legend  that  it  was 


The  Dog  as  a  Sacred  Animal  in  Italy  75 

founded  by  Numa  n  indicates  the  same  idea.12  Another  festival 
which  seems  an  echo  of  the  Robigalia  took  place  near  a  gate  called 
Catularia.  There  reddish  puppies  were  sacrificed  to  protect  the 
crops.13  Whether  that  sacrifice  belonged  to  the  Robigalia  or  to  a 
festival  which  was  a  Roman  double  of  it,14  is  for  our  purpose  im- 
material. 

Another  dog-cult  was  associated  with  two  ancient  and  little- 
known  deities,  the  Lares  Praestites.  Ovid  says  that  he  sought  to 
see  their  statues,  but  they  had  decayed  with  age.15  He  knew,  how- 
ever, that  they  were  represented  with  a  dog  at  their  feet.16  The 
Lares  Praestites  are  thought  to  be  portrayed  on  a  coin  of  the  Gens 
Caesia  which  shows  two  youths,  each  bearing  a  spear,  and  with  a 
dog  seated  between  them.17  Plutarch  adds  the  further  fact  that 
the  Lares  Praestites  were  clad  in  dog-skins.18  The  shrine  of  the 
Lares  Praestites  is  by  most  authorities  believed  to  have  been  on 
the  Velia,  on  the  same  site  as  the  Sacellum  Larum  which  was  erected 
by  Augustus.19  If  that  is  true,  the  dog-cult  of  the  Lares  probably 
belonged  to  a  later  period  than  the  ancient  cults  of  the  Cermalus, 
for  the  structures  on  the  Velia  are  associated  with  the  time  when 
the  Sabines  made  their  way  into  Rome.20  Plutarch  puts  the  Lares 
Praestites  in  a  class  by  themselves,  asking  why  it  is,  that,  of  the 
Lares,  those  that  are  called  by  the  individual  name  of  Praestites 
are  accompanied  by  a  dog  and  wear  dog-skins.21  This  question, 
together  with  the  probable  site  of  their  shrine,  suggests  that  the 
Lares  Praestites  were  the  Sabine  Lares,  as  against  the  Lares  Com- 
pitales,  who  were  the  protecting  spirits  of  the  Romans,  and  in 
whose  cult  the  dog  does  not  appear.22  The  prime  function  of  the 
Lares  is  indicated  by  the  prayer  which  the  Arval  Brothers,  priests 
of  the  chthonic  Dea  Dia,  offered  to  them,  begging  them  to  protect 
the  people  from  all  baleful  forces.23  Like  Hecate,  the  Lares  were 
worshipped  at  the  crossroads,24  but  they  also  appeared  as  protecting 
deities  in  nearly  all  places.23  The  dog  had,  therefore,  the  same  sig- 
nificance when  associated  with  the  Lares  that  he  had  with  Hecate, 
for  both  were  potent  to  protect  from  evil. 

There  are  two  other  dog-cults  of  like  character.  The  Um- 
brians  offered  a  dog  to  their  goddess  Hontia.25  Buecheler  notes 
that  the  name  Hontia  is  very  similar  to  the  name  of  the  infernal 
regions  and  to  certain  words  meaning  destruction.  He  believes, 
accordingly,  that  the  dog  offered  to  Hontia  was  a  purificatory 


76  The  Lupercalia 

sacrifice,  designed  to  avert  evil.25  Another  underworld  goddess 
was  Genita  Mana,  who  is  often  regarded  as  identical  with  Mania.26 
Her  realm,  as  is  indicated  by  her  name,  was  both  birth  and  death.27 
To  her  a  dog  was  sacrificed,  with  the  prayer  that  none  of  the  house- 
hold might  that  year  join  the  dead.28  This  sacrifice  Plutarch  makes 
parallel  to  the  one  offered  by  the  Greeks  to  Hecate.28  It  was, 
therefore,  designed  to  ward  off  the  baleful  powers  of  the  under- 
world. 

Outside  the  cults  with  which  the  dog  was  especially  associated, 
it  often  possessed  for  the  Romans,  as  for  the  Greeks,  a  magic  power. 
Puppies  were  considered  so  pure  a  meat,  says  Pliny,  that  they 
were  used  as  expiatory  sacrifices,  and  were  served  at  the  banquets 
given  in  honor  of  the  gods.29  The  power  of  the  dog  to  avert  evil 
was  utilized  in  a  most  practical  way  by  the  Roman  farmers.  Before 
undertaking  any  one  of  a  variety  of  important  tasks  concerning 
the  crops  or  the  cattle,  they  took  the  precaution  of  sacrificing  a 
dog.  Also,  by  a  sacrifice  of  this  convenient  animal,  they  might 
perform  on  festal  days  certain  labors  that  would  otherwise  be 
forbidden.30 

In  all  these  cases  of  the  dog  as  a  sacred  animal  in  Italy,  we  see 
that  the  Romans  regarded  it  in  the  same  light  as  did  the  Greeks, 
as  a  creature  able  to  protect  the  people  from  evil,  and  especially 
potent  to  dispel  the  powers  which  were  inimical  to  birth  and  growth. 
Therefore  its  use  in  the  Lupercalia  was  wholly  natural,  that  being 
a  festival  which  sought  to  ward  off  evil  and  to  set  free  the  life- 
activities. 

The  instances  of  dog-sacrifice  which  have  been  found  in  Italy 
occurred  either  in  the  immediate  environs  of  Rome  or  in  Umbria; 
but  a  series  of  coins  which  bear  the  figure  of  a  dog  seems  to  indicate 
that  the  dog  was  honored  as  a  sacred  animal  throughout  the  southern 
half  of  Italy.  A  coin  of  Metapontum  shows,  back  of  a  head  of 
the  city's  mythical  founder,  a  dog  seated,  with  fore-paw  raised.31 
The  reverse  pictures,  as  do  many  of  the  coins  of  Metapontum,32 
an  ear  of  grain.  We  remember  that  an  ear  of  grain  frequently 
occurred  in  conjunction  with  the  dog  on  the  coins  of  Segesta.33 
In  the  Apulian  town  of  Larinum,  a  coin  was  issued  representing 
a  dog  walking,  with  one  foot  raised;  the  reverse  bears  a  head  of 
Minerva.34  A  coin  of  Campania  also  shows  a  dog  with  fore-paw 
raised.35  A  dog  with  the  same  peculiarity  of  posture  appears  on 


The  Dog  as  a  Sacred  Animal  in  Italy  77 

a  coin  which  is  thought  to  come  from  Alba  Fucentis.  This  coin 
portrays  also  an  archaic  wheel,36  a  symbol  which  was  often  used 
on  Sicilian  coins  in  conjunction  with  the  dog.37  A  similar  type 
comes  from  the  town  of  Tuder,  in  southern  Umbria.38  Belonging 
to  Hatria,  a  town  of  Picenum,  is  a  coin  which  portrays  the  head 
of  Silanus  on  one  side,  and  a  sleeping  dog  on  the  other.39  A  coin 
that  is  thought  to  have  come  from  Etruria  shows  the  head  of  a 
youth,  who  was,  perhaps,  Hercules,  and  a  dog.40 

These  coins,  like  the  instances  of  dog-sacrifice  in  Italy,  do  not 
present  the  cult  of  one  dog-shaped  deity,  but  suggest,  rather,  a 
potent  animal  that  was  annexed  by  various  gods.  The  dog-cults 
of  Italy  give  no  indication  that  they  were  a  native  development. 
There  is  no  definite  region  from  which  they  originated,  nor  is  there 
any  one  deity  to  whom  the  dog  was  markedly  sacrosanct.  No  con- 
trast could  be  greater  than  between  the  faint  and  scattered  frag- 
ments of  the  cult  of  the  dog  in  Italy  and  the  dominant  figure  of 
Hecate  in  Thrace. 

If  the  cult  of  the  dog  was  imported  into  Italy,  it  must  have  been 
at  an  early  date,  as  it  was  associated  with  very  ancient  deities. 
Foreign  rites  were  first  brought  to  Rome  from  the  Greek  cities  of 
Sicily  and  of  Southern  Italy.41  We  have  seen  that  the  dog-cult 
was  strongly  centered  in  Sicily,  and  that  it  was  honored  by  the 
Mamertines  when  they  occupied  Messana.42  Certain  of  the  motives 
on  the  coins  of  Italy  which  were  used  in  connection  with  the  dog, 
as  the  sheaf  of  grain  and  the  wheel,  were  also  used  in  Sicily.  The 
cult  of  the  dog  was  also  wide-spread  in  the  cities  of  Southern  Italy. 
The  coins  from  both  Southern  and  Central  Italy  which  show  the 
dog  with  fore-paw  raised,  indicate,  by  this  similarity  of  treatment, 
that  there  had  been  an  exchange  of  ideas  between  those  localities. 
The  natural  conclusion  is  that  the  worship  of  the  dog,  like  so  many 
early  cults,  was  carried  to  Central  Italy  by  the  Greek  traders  who, 
as  early  as  the  time  of  the  Tarquins,  paid  frequent  visits  to  that 
region.43 

If  the  cult  of  the  dog  among  the  Italians  was  a  Greek  importation, 
the  dog-sacrifice  cannot  have  been  an  original  part  of  the  Luper- 
calia,  which  antedated  the  arrival  of  the  Greek  cults.  Though 
Plutarch  gives  no  hint  of  when  the  dog  was  first  sacrificed  in  the 
Lupercalia,  the  complete  lack  of  legends  about  it  seems  to  indicate 
that  it  did  not  belong  to  the  oldest  stratum  of  the  festival.  In  the 


7  8  The  Lupercalia 

Lupercalia,  as  well  as  in  the  Robigalia,  the  dog  was  sacrificed  in 
conjunction  with  another  victim.  That  may  well  indicate  an 
extension  of  the  original  ceremony,  for  outworn  cults  were  often 
rejuvenated  by  the  inclusion  of  new  rites,  or  the  sacrifice  of  a  more 
unusual  victim.44  In  Greece  the  sacrifice  of  a  dog  was  at  times 
severed  from  the  worship  of  Hecate  and  used  merely  as  a  magic 
rite  of  purification.45  In  Italy  the  dog-sacrifice  was  devoted  to 
purposes  of  magic.46  Thus  the  sheep  sacrificed  at  the  Robigalia 
and  the  goat  at  the  Lupercalia  may  well  have  had  "new  magic" 
given  to  them  by  the  additional  sacrifice  of  a  dog. 

We  cannot  be  sure  of  the  agency  by  which  this  new  victim  was 
added  to  the  Lupercalia.  It  may  have  been  brought  in  from  the 
cities  of  Latium,  just  as  was  the  cult  of  Heracles  or  of  the  Dioscuri. 
The  fact,  however,  that  the  chief  priest  of  the  Sabines  offered  the 
dog  to  Robigus,  and  that  the  Sabines  seem  to  have  introduced  the 
Lares  Praestites  to  Rome,  suggests  the  possibility  that  they  were 
likewise  responsible  for  the  sacrifice  of  a  dog  at  the  Lupercalia. 
The  character  of  the  Sabines  and  the  part  which  they  played  in 
the  religion  of  the  Romans  gives  added  ground  for  this  assumption. 

The  Sabines  hold  a  place  apart  from  other  Italic  tribes,  for  they 
universally  adopted  the  Mediterranean  custom  of  burying,  instead 
of  cremating,  their  dead.  In  the  vast  necropolis  of  Aufidena,  not 
a  single  incineration-grave  has  been  found.47  This  departure  from 
the  burial  customs  of  their  race  proves  that  there  had  been  some 
vital  alteration  in  the  Sabines.  Furthermore.,  even  the  skulls 
found  in  these  graves  are  dolicocephalic.48  In  religion  the  Sabines 
show  a  strong  tendency  toward  chthonic  cults.49  For  example, 
the  Flamen  Quirinalis  performed  the  offering  at  the  tomb  of  Acca 
Larentia  and  officiated  at  the  Consualia,  at  which  the  altar  of 
Census,  which  was  buried  in  the  earth  during  the  rest  of  the  year, 
was  uncovered.50  The  ancients  considered  the  Sabines  remarkable 
for  their  devotion  to  religion,  as  is  shown  by  the  popular  derivation 
of  Sabini  from  <rej3o/zai.51  Also  they  ascribed  to  the  Sabine  kings, 
Numa  and  Titus  Tatius,  the  majority  of  the  important  cults  of 
Rome,  thus  expressing  their  belief  that  the  Sabines  had  exercised 
a  very  great  influence  upon  the  development  of  religion  in  the 
Roman  state.52  Owing  to  this  devout  temperament,  the  Sabines 
would  have  been  particularly  ready  to  adopt  the  cult  of  the  dog,  for 
that,  with  its  emphasis  upon  uncleanness  and  the  need  of  purifica- 


The  Dog  as  a  Sacred  A  nimal  in  Italy  79 

tion,  appealed  to  the  most  pious,  as  was  shown  when  the  Orphics 
made  Hecate  one  of  their  chief  gods.53 

February,  the  month  in  which  the  Lupercalia  was  celebrated, 
was  by  legend  connected  with  the  Sabines.  It  was  generally  be- 
lieved by  the  ancients  that  Numa,  having  divided  the  year  into 
twelve  months,  instead  of  ten  as  heretofore,  added  the  months 
of  January  and  February.54  The  latter  month  derived  its  name 
from  the  februa,  the  most  solemn  lustral  media,55  and  was  thus 
marked  as  the  month  of  cleansing.  Ovid  says  that  when  the  year 
was  only  ten  months  in  length,  the  Romans  did  not  know  the  holy 
februa™  Though  this  statement  need  not  be  taken  as  literally 
true,  it  shows  that  Ovid  believed  that  the  Romans  were  indifferent 
to  the  rite  of  purification,  but  that  the  Sabines  valued  it  and  were 
chiefly  responsible  for  February  being  devoted  to  lustral  ceremonies. 
Of  all  these  cleansing  rites,  the  Lupercalia  had,  by  Varro's  time, 
come  to  be  the  most  important.  Varro  even  went  so  far  as  to  sug- 
gest that  the  whole  month  had  derived  its  name  from  the  Luper- 
calia, which  he  called  "the  day  of  purification."57  It  is  reasonable 
to  think  of  the  Sabines  as  responsible,  at  least  in  part,  for  this 
emphasis  upon  the  lustral  side  of  the  Lupercalia,  since  that  festival 
could  hardly  have  failed  to  be  influenced  by  the  dominant  note 
which  the  Sabines  seem  to  have  given  to  the  whole  month  of  Febru- 
ary. It  was,  moreover,  not  a  new  meaning  that  was  thus  added 
to  the  Lupercalia,  but  an  intensifying  and  clarifying  of  its  oldest 
significance,  that  of  protecting  men  from  evil.  For,  as  the  Medi- 
terranean people  developed  in  religious  thought,  they  came  to 
believe  that  the  chief  cause  of  evil  was  man's  impurity,  and  hence 
strove  to  avert  evil  by  removing  impurity.  Consequently  the 
Lupercalia  could  best  perform  its  ancient  function  if  it  freed  the 
people  from  uncleanness. 

The  ritual  acts  of  the  Lupercalia,  like  those  of  all  ceremonies 
of  purgation,  would  tend  to  diminish  in  power.58  We  see  this 
exemplified  repeatedly  in  Rome's  history.  It  would,  therefore, 
have  been  fully  in  accord  with  the  march  of  events  that  the  Luper- 
calia, at  some  time  of  need,  should  likewise  have  failed  the  people, 
and  that  persons  who  were  familiar  with  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrifice 
of  a  dog,  should  then  have  added  that  rite  to  the  festival. 

The  Lupercalia  started  out  as  a  ceremony  of  riddance.  But  the 
riddance  of  the  infernal  spirits  is  merely  the  savage  man's  way  of 


8o  The  Lupercalia 

putting  it.  Civilized  man  realizes  that  one  must  be  rid  of  impuri- 
ties that  clog  the  life-power.  Thus  only  could  the  gift  of  fertility, 
which  was  also  sought  by  the  Lupercalia,  be  assured.  Among 
the  Mediterranean  people  the  most  effective  medium  for  this 
purpose  was  the  sacrifice  of  a  dog.  This  was  a  rite  that  was  highly 
esteemed  by  the  Sabines,  who  had  adopted  many  beliefs  of  the 
Mediterranean  race.  The  activity  of  the  Sabines  in  reorganizing 
the  religion  of  Rome  and  in  developing  the  rites  of  purification, 
makes  it  easy  to  believe  that  they  may  have  sought  to  fortify  the 
Lupercalia,  the  oldest  lustral  ceremony  of  the  city,  by  adding  to 
it  the  most  effective  purificatory  sacrifice  that  could  be  offered — 
a  dog. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VIII 

1.  Peter,  in  Roscher,  iv,  826;   Hild,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  iv,  1344. 

2.  Keller,  Die  Antike  Tierwelt,  i,  136,  140. 

3.  Plin.,  8.  151. 

4.  Liebrecht,  Zur  Volkskunde,  23;  Gruppe,  803-4. 

5.  Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Georg.,  i.  151;  Plin.,  N.  H.,  18.  154,  161. 

6.  Gell.,  5.  12.  14.  Fowler  (R.  F.,  89)  regards  Robigus  as  an   indigitation 
of  Mars.    This  is  merely  another  view  of  the  same  idea,  for  Mars  was  implored 
by  Cato  (R.  R.,  141)  to  spare  the  crops  from  harm;  and  the  mildew  was  the  most 
dreaded  form  of  injury. 

7.  The  Robigalia  is  entered  in  the  Fasti  in  large  capitals,  hence  is  one  of  the 
oldest  festivals. 

8.  Var.,  L.  L.,  6.  16;  Paul,  ex  Fest.,  267.  Ovid  (Fast.,  4.  939)  offers  in  explana- 
tion of  the  dog-sacrifice  the  reason  that  it  was  to  propitiate  the  dog-star,  which 
was  destructive  to  the  crops.    Dr.  Fowler  (R.  F.,  90)  has  shown  the  falsity  of  this 
explanation.    See  also  Hild,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  iv,  875. 

9.  See  p.  70. 

10.   Ov.,  Fast.,  4.  910. 

n.   Plin.,  N.  H.,  18.285;  Tertull.,  de  Spect.,  5. 

12.  The  objection  may  be  raised  that  the  Robigalia  is  often  believed  to  have 
been  held,  not  in  the  land  of  the  Sabines,  but  on  the  Via  Clodia,  two  miles  beyond 
the  Tiber  (Fowler,  R.  F.,  89).  This  belief  rests  upon  the  identification  of  the  Via 
Clodia  with  the  Via  Claudia,  upon  which,  the  Fasti  state  (C.  I.  L.t  i,  p.  392),  the 
Robigalia  was  celebrated;  but  it  is  very  hard  to  reconcile  with  Ovid's  statement 
(Fast.,  4.  905)  that  he  met  the  procession  of  the  Robigalia  when  he  was  going  from 
Nomentum  to  Rome.  If  Mommsen's  explanation  (C.  I.  L.,  i,  p.  392),  that  Ovid 
was  going  to  his  gardens  which  lay  near  the  Via  Clodia,  is  to  be  accepted,  one  must 
believe  that  Ovid  described  his  route  in  a  very  ambiguous  fashion.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  Ovid's  words  are  taken  at  face  value,  they  would  mean  that  the  Lucus 
Robiginis  was  in  the  Sabine  country  between  Rome  and  Nomentum.  Since  this 


The  Dog  as  a  Sacred  Animal  in  Italy  81 

territory  had  been  held  by  the  Claudian  tribe  from  prehistoric  times  (Verg.,  Aent. 
7.  706^-12;  Liv.,  2.  16.  5;  Suet.,  Tib.,  i;  Pinza,  Monumenti  primitivi  di  Roma  e  del 
Lazio  antico,  221),  it  would  have  been  very  natural  that  a  road  passing  through 
it  should  be  known  as  the  Via  Claudia.  This  explanation  also  obviates  the 
difficulty  arising  from  the  discrepancy  of  the  names  Via  Claudia,  mentioned 
in  the  Fasti,  and  Via  Clodia;  for  the  latter  name  never  appears  in  inscriptions 
or  itineraries  in  any  other  form. 

13.  Fest.,  285;  Paul,  ex  Fest.,  45. 

14.  This  is  the  view  of  Mommsen  (C.  I.  L.,  i,  392)  and  of  Fowler  (  R.  F.,  90). 

15.  Fast.,  5.  143. 

16.  Fast.,  5.  137. 

17.  Babelon,  i,  281;   Jordan,  De  larum  imaginibus,  329. 

1 8.  Q,  R.,  51.    Some  scholars  believe  that  a  dog  was  also  sacrificed  to  the  Lares 
Praestites  (Fowler,  R.  F.,  101;   Roscher,  i,  1612). 

19.  Jordan,  Lar.  im.,  326-9;    Becker.  De  Romae  veteris  muris  atque  portis, 
12;  Wissowa,  R.  K.,  171. 

20.  Both  Numa  and  Ancus  Martius  are  said  to  have  dwelt  on  the  Velia  (Solin., 
i.  21,  23).    Numa  was  said  to  have  built  the  Regia  (Ov.,  Trist.,  3.  i.  30)  and  the 
temple  of  Vesta  (Dionys.,  2.  65,  66). 

21.  Q.  R.,  51. 

22.  Fowler,  R.  F.,  101. 

23.  Henzen,  Acta  Fratrum  Arvalium,  145. 

24.  Ov.,  Fast.,  5.  140;   Macr.,  I.  7.  35. 

25.  Buecheler,  Umbrica,  128. 

26.  Muller,  Etrusker,  ii,  105  n.  78  b. 

27.  Roscher,  i,  1612. 

28.  Plut.,  Q.  R.,  52;  Plin.,  N.  H.,  29.  58, 

29.  N.  H.,  29.  58. 

30.  Colum.,  2.  22. 

31.  Hunterian  Collection,  91.  24. 

32.  Hunterian  Collection,  91. 

33.  See  p.  70. 

34.  Babelon,  i,  29. 

35.  Hunterian  Collection,  52.  33,  PI.  iv  .  8. 

36.  Hunterian  Collection ,  u.  i. 
37-   See  p.  70. 

38.  Head,  22;  Hunterian  Collection,  5. 

39.  Head,  23;  Hunterian  Collection,  7. 

40.  Hunterian  Collection,  18. 

41.  Fowler,  R.  F.,  197. 

42.  See  p.  70. 

43.  Carter,  The  Religious  Life  of  Ancient  Rome,  39;  Pais,  Anc.  It.,  289;  Fowler, 
R.  F.,  12 1 ;  Schwegler,  i,  679. 

44.  Fowler,  R.  E.,  287. 

45.  See  p.  68. 

46.  See  p.  76. 

47.  Modestov,  254. 


82  The  Lupercalia 

48.  Modestov,  255. 

49.  Piganiol,  30,  132,  et  passim. 

50.  Tertull.,  de  Spect.,  8;   Cell.,  7.  7.  7. 

51.  Var.  ap.  Fest.,  343;  Schwegler,  i,  244. 

52.  Wissowa,  R.  K.,  430;  Fowler,  R.  E.,  108;  Schwegler,  i,  248;    Marquardt, 
iii,27-3i. 

53.  See  page  68. 

54.  Van,  L.  L.,  6.  34;  Liv.,  i.  19.  6;  Ov.,  Fas/.,  3.  152;  Plut.,  Num.,  19;  Solin., 
I.  37;  Cens.,  20.  2,  4,  5;  Macr.,  7.  13.  2-5.    The  following  scholars  are  inclined  to 
believe  that  the  organization  of  the  calendar  was  due  to  the  Sabines:   Huschke, 
Das  alte  romische  Jahr  und  seine  Tage,  8,  26;   Wissowa,  R.  K.,  430;   Marquardt, 
iii,  284;   Fowler,  R.  E.,  108.    The  difficulties  involved  in  the  idea  of  a  ten-month 
year  (Fowler,  R.  F.,  2)  cannot  be  considered  here,  but  the  names  January  and 
February  show  by  their  formation  that  they  were  later  than  the  names  of  the 
other  months  (Schulze,  Zur  Geschichte  lateinischen  Eigennamen,  487). 

55.  Var.  ap.  Non.,  p.  114.  17;  Censor.,  22.  14;  Ov.,Fast.,2.  19;  Plut.,  Q.,  R., 
19;  id.  Num.,  19;  Lyd.,  de  Mens.,  4.  25.   From  these  februa  was  fashioned  the  god 
Februus,  an  infernal  deity,  the  double  of  Pluto  (Serv.  ad  Verg.,  Georg.,  i.  I.  43; 
Isid.,  Orig.,  5.  33.  4;  Macr.,  i.  13.  3;  Gelas.  adv.  Androm.,  3).    He  was  named  by 
Lydus  (de  Mens.,  4.  25)  the  god  of  the  Lupercalia.     He  was,  however,  evidently 
a  late  abstraction,  as  his  name  does  not  occur  before  the  fourth  century. 

56.  Fast.,  5-423- 

57.  L.  L.,  6.  34. 

58.  Diels,  83. 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  BLOOD-CEREMONY  OF  THE  LUPERCALIA 

There  remains  to  be  considered  the  curious  rite  of  the  Lupercalia 
in  which  a  sword  was  dipped  into  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  and 
pressed  upon  the  foreheads  of  two  young  men.  The  blood  was  then 
washed  away  with  wool  moistened  in  milk.  After  that  the  youths 
must  laugh.1  This  ceremony  has  provoked  wide  speculation  because 
it  is  utterly  different  from  the  usual  cult-practices  of  the  Romans. 
To  gain  an  understanding  of  the  use  and  significance  of  these  media, 
we  must  turn  to  the  ritualistic  acts  of  Greece. 

Of  the  use  of  blood  in  primitive  religions  we  have  countless 
instances.  The  almost  unvarying  idea  of  uncivilized  man  is  that 
blood  is  not  merely  essential  to  life,  but  the  very  life  itself.2  Con- 
sequently in  sacrifices  offered  to  earth-gods  to  stir  their  life-giving 
power,  the  blood  of  the  victim  is  often  poured  upon  the  ground.  By 
a  transference  of  idea,  since  the  sacrificial  animal  has  within  it  the 
essence  of  the  deity,  its  blood  is  regarded  as  the  supreme  embodiment 
of  the  god's  mystic  potency.3  Man  may  partake  of  this  divine  power 
by  various  means:  he  may  drink  the  blood,  or  he  may  have  it 
applied  to  him  externally,  as  was  done  in  the  Lupercalia.  Thus  he 
comes  into  contact  with  the  life-force  and  is  purified.4  For  this 
reason  the  blood  of  the  sacrificial  victim  was  used  to  cleanse  men 
from  murder  and  from  madness.5  In  ceremonies  of  lustration, 
sprinkling  with  blood  was  the  surest  of  all  cleansing  media.6  It 
seems  to  have  been  employed  as  one  of  the  lustral  ceremonies  of  the 
Eleusinian  Mysteries.7  In  the  rite  of  the  Taurobolium  the  wor- 
shipper, in  a  pit  beneath  the  sacrificial  animal,  won  purity  by 
allowing  the  sacred  blood  to  flow  upon  him  until  he  was  literally 
covered.8  This  ceremony,  which  was  probably  of  great  antiquity 
in  Asia,9  came  to  be  practised  in  the  Cybele-Attis  cult  as  one  of 
its  most  important  features.10  In  Italy  the  Taurobolium  was 
ardently  observed  during  several  centuries  of  the  Empire.11  The 
Orphics,  who  specialized  in  lustral  media,12  received  into  their 
religion  the  god  Attis  together  with  his  bloody  rite.13  The 
Orphics  put  themselves  into  contact  with  the  divine  power 
in  another  ceremony,  the  Omophagia,  in  which  they  imbibed 


84  The  Lupercalia 

the  sacrificial  blood,  along  with  the  raw  flesh,  of  the  newly  slain 
animal.14 

In  these  instances  of  the  use  of  blood  in  Greek  ritual,  it  was  either 
an  offering  to  the  earth-mother,  that  she  might  recreate  into  new 
life  this  life-force  which  was  restored  to  her,  or  it  was  a  means  by 
which  man,  coming  into  direct  contact  with  the  essence  of  deity, 
might  be  freed  from  all  the  forces  of  evil.  Freedom  from  evil  was 
likewise  the  purpose  of  the  Lupercalia,  hence  the  use  of  blood  in 
that  festival  may  reasonably  be  regarded  as  parallel  to  that  of  the 
Greek  ceremonies.  The  rite  of  blood-sprinkling,  belonging  as  it  did 
to  the  worship  of  chthonic  deities,  and  appearing  most  markedly 
in  the  cult  of  Attis  and  in  the  ritual  of  the  Orphics,  may  be  accepted 
as  characteristically  Mediterranean. 

In  the  chthonic  cults  of  Italy,  as  in  Greece,  the  blood  of  the 
sacrifice  was  frequently  poured  upon  the  earth.  Thus  it  was  offered 
to  the  Manes  15  and  to  Terminus.16  In  the  quaint  rite  that  occurred 
on  the  Ides  of  October,  a  horse  was  slain,  his  tail  was  suspended  in 
the  Regia  and  the  blood  allowed  to  drip  upon  the  hearth.  The  blood 
was  preserved,  it  seems,  by  the  Vestal  Virgins,  and  later,  mixed 
with  the  ashes  of  unborn  calves,  was  sprinkled  upon  the  fires  through 
which  the  people  leaped  in  the  Parilia.17  Here  blood  is  used  in  a 
mystic  rite  whose  purpose  is  interpreted  as  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Lupercalia — lustration  and  fertility.18  But  in  the  details  of  the 
ritual  the  two  festivals  offer  no  likeness  such  as  we  discovered  in 
the  Pelasgian  ceremonies. 

The  sword  by  which  the  blood  was  placed  upon  the  youths'  heads 
should  probably  be  classed  with  other  weapons,  such  as  the  double 
axe  and  the  figure-eight  shield  of  Crete,  which  were  holy  objects  in 
Mediterranean  ritual.19  The  significance  of  the  sacrificial  sword  in 
the  Taurobolium  is  shown  by  its  constant  representation  upon  the 
Taurobolic  altars.20  The  regular  association  of  the  sickle  with 
Chronus  suggests  its  sanctity  in  his  cult.21  In  Italy  the  lance  of 
Juno  Quiritis  and  of  Quirinus,  and  the  lance  and  the  an  cilia  of  Mars 
were  especially  venerated.22 

The  blood  smeared  upon  the  foreheads  of  the  young  men  was 
wiped  off  by  a  bit  of  wool  dipped  in  milk.  In  the  same  way  in  Greek 
rites  the  sacrificial  blood  which  had  been  sprinkled  upon  a  man  was 
removed  by  various  cleansing  media.  "The  blood  was  too  holy  to 
be  left  in  permanent,  contact  with  a  man  who  was  presently  to 


The  Blood-Ceremony  of  the  Lupercalia  85 

return  to  common  life."23  The  Orphics  frequently  smeared  earth 
upon  the  devotees  as  a  means  of  cleansing,  and  removed  it  by  a 
ceremonial  wiping  off.24  So  important  in  ceremonies  of  purification 
was  this  bedaubing  with  clay  and  its  removal  that  the  words 
irepwaTrew  and  dTTo/zdrrctv  became  standing  expressions  for  mys- 
tic cleansing.25  Of  this  ceremonial  wiping  off  the  Lupercalia 
affords  the  only  example  in  Roman  cults. 

From  the  sanctity  which  the  skin  of  a  sacrificial  animal  possessed, 
it  is  natural  that  wool  should  have  been  of  significant  and  constant 
use  in  the  religion  of  both  Greeks  and  Romans.  The  binding  of  the 
priest's  forehead  with  woolen  fillets  before  he  sacrificed  was  a 
symbol  that  he  was  possessed  by  the  deity.26  Naturally,  therefore, 
wool  was  potent  for  purification.  Ovid,  in  his  list  of  the  materials 
that  have  cleansing  power,  mentions  wool  first  of  all.27  Wool  was 
included  among  the  offerings  of  first  fruits  and  natural  products 
which  were  placed  in  the  kernos  and  carried  as  holy  objects  in  the 
Mysteries  of  Eleusis.28 

Milk,  used  in  the  Lupercalia  to  moisten  the  wool,  was  employed 
among  both  Greeks  and  Romans  in  the  earliest  times  as  a  libation 
to  chthonic  deities.  But  of  its  mystic  use  in  the  Lupercalia,  native 
Roman  religion  affords  us  no  other  instance.  That  meaning  can 
be  found  only  in  the  religion  of  the  Orphics.  The  use  of  milk  in  the 
Orphic  mysteries  is  indicated  by  certain  gold  tablets  which  are  very 
important  sources  of  knowledge  of  the  Orphic  cults.  These  tablets 
were  placed  close  by  the  dead  person  and  contained  directions  for 
his  conduct  in  the  lower  world :  formulas  that  he  was  to  repeat,  or 
statements  of  ritual  that  he  had  performed.  They  constituted  for 
the  dead  man  his  card  of  admission  to  the  realm  of  the  blest.29 
The  close  similarity  of  phrasing  in  the  tablets  indicates  that  they 
echo  some  important  ritualistic  poem  of  the  Orphics.30  Two  tablets 
contain  the  words,  "Thou  shalt  be  god  instead  of  mortal.  A  kid, 
I  have  fallen  into  milk".31  These  words,  like  the  other  formulas, 
must  describe  some  symbolic  act  which  the  initiate  has  performed. 
The  promise,  "Thou  shalt  be  god  instead'of  mortal"  suggests  that 
the  following  words,  "A  kid,  I  have  fallen  into  milk,"  express  in 
mystic  fashion  the  Orphic's  attainment  of  the  highest  bliss.  The 
meaning  of  a  kid  in  this  formula  has  been  explained  by  Dr.  Dieterich, 
who  notes  that  'Ept^ios  was  a  title  of  Dionysus  which  was  used  by 
the  Dorians  of  the  Peloponnesus  and  of  Southern  Italy,  being  espe- 


86  The  Lupercalia 

cially  favored  at  Metapontum,  near  which  these  tablets  were  found.32 
Thus  in  this  region  Dionysus  was  known  as  "The  Kid,"  just  as  he 
was  called  "The  Bull"  in  Crete.  Consequently,  when  the  Orphic 
calls  himself  a  kid  he  seems  to  identify  himself  with  the  Kid- 
Dionysus.33  But  "The  Kid"  is  an  infant  god,  and  so  must  be  nour- 
ished upon  milk.34  By  the  use  of  milk,  therefore,  the  initiates 
further  symbolized  their  union  with  the  god.35  The  expression,  "I 
have  fallen,"  has  been  taken  to  indicate  an  actual  bath  in  milk,36  or 
a  vigorous  substitute  for  the  words,  "I  have  found,"  the  worshipper's 
complete  union  with  the  deity  being  probably  symbolized  by  his 
drinking  milk  or  being  sprinkled  with  milk.37  In  either  case,  the 
words,  "A  kid,  I  have  fallen  into  milk"  seem  to  indicate  that  the 
initiate  has  been  mystically  reborn  and  transformed  into  a  god.37 
The  same  idea  appears  in  the  cult  of  Cybele.  In  the  sacred  drama, 
after  Attis  has  died  and  has  been  restored  to  life,  the  worshippers 
end  their  mourning  fast  by  partaking  of  milk.  In  doing  so  they 
seem  to  be  in  divine  communion  with  the  youthful  god,  who  has 
just  entered  life  anew.38 

The  laughter  of  the  youths,  which  formed  the  final  act  of  the 
blood-ceremony,  finds  no  parallel  in  Roman  cult,  and  very  little  in 
Greek.  It  has  been  explained  (a)  as  the  indication  by  the  lads  of 
their  readiness  to  be  sacrificed,39  (b)  as  the  sign  that,  after  their 
ritualistic  slaughter,  they  were  restored  to  life,40  and  (c)  as  the 
symbol  of  their  entrance  upon  a  new  life  of  purity.41  If  we  are 
correct  in  our  belief  that  a  human  being  was  not  the  original  victim 
at  the  Lupercalia,  neither  of  the  first  two  explanations  of  the  laugh 
can  be  accepted.  On  the  other  hand,  the  third  view,  that  it  was 
the  expression  of  joy  over  being 'cleansed  and  so  restored  to  new 
life,  is  in  complete  harmony  with  the  symbolism  of  the  purifying 
blood  and  the  milk.  If  so,  it  corresponds  to  the  joyous  words 
uttered  by  the  Orphic  after  he  had  been  purified  by  the  smearing 
on  and  the  wiping  off  of  mud,  "Bad  have  I  fled,  better  have  I 
found.42"  The  cult  of  Attis,  in  which  the  blood  and  the  milk  had  a 
part  so  similar  to  their  use  in  the  Lupercalia,  offers  another  parallel. 
After  the  communicants  had  ended  their  mourning  for  Attis  and 
had  received  milk  as  the  sign  of  their  admission  to  a  new  life,  they 
celebrated  the  festival  called  'IXapeia.43  The  uncontrolled  expression 
of  joy  which  characterized  that  festival  may  be  likened  to  the 
laughter  that  concluded  the  Lupercalia. 


The  Blood-Ceremony  of  the  Lupercalia  87 

As  we  sum  up  the  significance  of  this  strange  part  of  the  Luper- 
calia, we  see  that,  almost  without  exception,  the  elements  belong 
characteristically  to  Pelasgian  religion.  Sprinkling  with  blood  as  a 
means  of  purification  or  of  communion  with  the  deity,  a  ceremonial 
wiping  off  as  a  sign  that  old  things  are  done  away,  and  a  sprinkling 
with  milk  symbolizing  a  new  life  of  purity  and  of  kinship  with 
divinity,  were,  to  many  Greeks,  ritual  acts  that  called  forth  profound 
reverence.  Of  such  rites  the  cults  indigenous  to  Italy  give  us  not  a 
single  instance  except  the  Lupercalia.  That  suggests  the  possibility 
that  this  bit  of  ritual  was  borrowed,  as  were  so  many  elements  of 
the  Roman  religion,  from  the  Greeks.44 

If  such  was  the  case,  the  Orphics  probably  introduced  these 
ceremonies;  for  only  in  their  rites  and  in  those  of  Attis,  whom  they 
took  as  their  own  god,  were  these  acts  significant.  Was  there  any 
medium  by  which  the  influence  of  the  Orphics  could  have  become  so 
pronounced  in  Rome  as  to  account  for  a  graft  of  their  ritual  upon 
this  ancient  Roman  festival? 

The  Cumaean  Sibyl  immediately  comes  to  the  mind  of  one  who 
seeks  to  explain  the  presence  of  a  foreign  cult  in  Rome.  From  very 
early  days  she  had  accustomed  the  Romans  to  receive  Greek  deities 
or  to  add  Greek  ceremonials  to  the  native  rites.45  Under  her  guidance 
one  chthonic  god  after  another,  Demeter,  Dionysus,  Proserpina, 
Hermes,  Poseidon,  Dis,  and  Aesculapius,  came  to  Rome.  The 
ancient  Roman  cult  of  Saturn  was  Hellenized  by  the  addition  of 
a  lectisternium  and  other  features  of  Greek  ritual.  The  ceremonials 
directed  by  the  Sibyl  were  of  a  mystic  or  a  spectacular  type,  ap- 
pealing to  the  same  emotions  of  awe  or  of  religious  enthusiasm  as 
the  ritual  acts  of  the  Orphics.  The  influence  of  the  Sibyl  was  most 
marked  during  the  war  with  Hannibal,46  when  the  people  seemed  no 
longer  able  to  secur  ehelp  from  their  native  gods,  and  so  appealed 
repeatedly  to  the  Sibyl.  After  Trasimene,  a  spectacular  lectisier 
nium  was  held :  six  pairs  of  gods,  Greek  and  Roman  being  taken* 
without  distinction,  were  placed  on  couches  to  receive  offerings. 
Dr.  Warde  Fowler  declares  that  this  event  marks  the  turning-point 
in  Roman  religion:  "the  dividing  line  between  di  indigetes  and 
di  novensiles  now  vanishes  forever."47  From  now  on,  Greek  ritual  was 
employed  alike  for  Greek  and  for  Roman  deities.  After  the  disaster 
of  Cannae  many  foreign  rites  were  introduced.  The  people  even 
resorted  to  a  religiou*  act  utterly  abhorrent  to  Romans:48  two 


88  The  Lupercalia 

Gauls  and  two  Greeks  were  buried  alive  in  the  Forum  Boarium. 
Finally  the  Romans  brought  to  their  city,  with  all  pomp,  the  statue 
of  the  Magna  Mater  of  Pessinus.  During  the  same  year  Dionysus 
was  received  in  Rome.  These  last  arrivals  were  not  accorded  the 
treatment  given  to  other  foreign  gods :  they  were  not  kept  outside 
the  Pomoerium,  but  were  given  temples  on  the  Palatine,  just  above 
the  ancient  cult-center  on  the  Cermalus,  hence  close  by  the  Lupercal. 
Owing  to  this  proximity,  these  two  powerful  deities  had  an  excellent 
opportunity  to  influence  the  cult  of  Lupercus.  The  Phrygian 
Cybele,  though  she  was  not  usually  included  among  the  variant 
names  of  the  Orphic  deity,  was  the  same  in  essence  and  was  honored 
by  the  same  mystic  and  orgiastic  rites;  while  the  worship  of  Diony- 
sus might  be  called  the  kernel  of  Orphic  religion.49 

For  the  direct  influence  of  Orphism  upon  Rome,  we  must  turn 
to  the  cities  of  Southern  Italy,  with  which  Rome,  even  under  the 
Etruscans,  had  active  trade  relations.50  In  the  wake  of  the  traders 
various  Greek  gods,  as,  for  example,  Heracles  and  the  Dioscuri, 
made  their  way  into  Rome.51  Damia,  the  earth-goddess  of  Taren- 
tum,  was  identified  with  Bona  Dea,  and  imposed  certain  features 
of  her  ritual  upon  the  native  cult.52  The  foisting  of  Greek  rites 
upon  so  ancient  a  goddess  as  Bona  Dea  is  especially  significant. 
In  these  Greek  cities  of  Southern  Italy,  Orphism  was  honored 
more  than  in  any  other  region.  The  teachings  of  Orpheus  were 
accepted  as  the  basic  principles  of  the  school  of  Pythagoras,  which 
was  established  at  Velia,  and  which  was  influential  throughout 
the  neighboring  cities.53  Some  of  the  Orphic  tablets  mentioned 
above  were  unearthed  at  Sybaris.54  At  Tarentum  both  the  ritual 
of  Pythagoras  and  the  mysteries  of  Dionysus  were  especially 
cultivated.55  With  these  particular  cities,  Velia,  Tarentum,  and 
Sybaris,  Rome  had  especially  active  communication  from  the 
earliest  times.56  During  the  Samnite  Wars  the  Romans  came  to 
know  the  Pythagoreans  in  their  own  home.  Appius  Claudius 
Caecus  is  said  to  have  embraced  their  faith,57  and  even  the  hard- 
headed  elder  Cato  was  interested  in  listening  to  their  theories.58 
The  vogue  which  this  philosophy  gained  in  Rome  is  evidenced  by 
the  persistent  tradition  that  Numa  was  a  Pythagorean.59 

By  181  B.  C.  Pythagoreanism  was  strong  enough  in  Rome  to 
attempt  a  daring  fraud.  On  Mount  Janiculum  was  dug  up  a  coffin 
bearing  an  inscription  which  declared  that  it  contained  the  body 


The  Blood-Ceremony  of  the  Lupercalia  89 

of  Numa.  Within  it  were  found,  not  a  skeleton,  but  books  on 
Pythagorean  philosophy  which  purported  to  be  the  writings  of 
Numa.60  The  purpose  must  have  been  to  win  state  support  for 
mysticism  under  the  prestige  of  Numa's  name.  The  hope  that 
such  an  attempt  could  succeed  argues  a  rather  wide-spread  accep- 
tance in  Rome  of  Pythagorean  philosophy.  But  the  ruse  was 
doomed  to  failure:  the  Senate  immediately  denounced  these 
Orphic  books  as  a  fraud,  and  ordered  that  they  be  burned  in  the 
Comitium.60  A  companion  picture  to  this  occurrence  is  furnished 
by  an  outbreak  five  years  earlier,  when  a  large  part  of  the  populace 
turned  with  the  utmost  abandon  to  the  orgies  of  Dionysus.  Meet- 
ings were  held  at  night,  and  the  wild  frenzy  which  prevailed  in 
Thrace  or  on  Mount  Cithaeron  was  rampant  in  Rome.  In  this 
case,  too,  the  Senate  took  firm  measures.  This  strange  religion 
was  denounced  as  a  coniumtio,  and  the  celebrants  punished  as 
conspirators  against  the  state.  Yet  the  Senate  provided  a  safety 
valve  for  their  religious  fervor.  Under  carefully  stipulated  con- 
ditions, those  who  felt  that  they  could  not  conscientiously  give 
up  the  new  religion,  were  allowed  to  continue  it.61  These  two  events 
coming  so  close  together  show  very  clearly  the  following  which 
the  religious  ecstasy  and  the  mystic  ritual  acts  of  the  Orphics  had 
won  in  Rome.  So  threatening  were  the  proportions  of  this  new 
cult  that  the  Senate  did  not  dare  follow  its  usual  practice  of  re- 
ligious tolerance;  and  yet  infection  so  intense  and  so  widespread 
must  not  be  deprived  of  an  outlet,  lest  the  evil  break  forth  still 
more  \iolently.  A  judicious  state  control  was,  therefore,  the 
solution.62 

This  survey  of  the  influence  of  the  Cumaean  Sibyl  and  of  Orphism 
upon  Rome  shows  that  a  transfer  of  Orphic  rites  to  an  ancient 
Roman  ceremony  like  the  Lupercalia  was  inherently  possible. 
For  centuries  the  Romans  were  bringing  in  one  after  another  of 
the  primitive  chthonic  deities  of  Greece,  were  identifying  various 
Italian  gods  with  Greek  gods,  and  altering  the  established  national 
ritual  to  suit  Greek  practices.  At  any  time  during  this  period  the 
partial  Hellenizing  of  the  Lupercalia  would  have  been  in  harmony 
with  the  spirit  of  the  times.  Such  a  change  could  have'  occurred 
most  easily,  however,  during  the  Hannibal ic  war  or  the  two  decades 
immediately  following,  when  the  people,  having  received  into  their 
city  Cybele  and  Dionysus,  were  deeply  stirred  by  the  orgies  of 


9O  The  Lupercalia 

Dionysus  and  by  the  beliefs  of  the  Pythagoreans.  During  that 
period  the  insertion  of  certain  Orphic  rites  into  the  Lupercalia 
would  have  been  only  one  event  of  numberless  such.  Moreover, 
the  Lupercalia,  with  its  emphasis  upon  purification,  would  have  been 
an  especially  natural  ceremony  to  receive  an  Orphic  graft;  for 
purification  was  above  all  else  the  quest  of  the  Orphics,  and  they 
were  expert  in  the  media  by  which  to  attain  it. 

Assuming  that  the  blood-rite  of  the  Lupercalia  may  have  been 
of  Orphic  origin,  we  observe  that  no  one  ceremony  was  taken  over 
bodily  by  the  Romans,  but  that  this  part  of  the  Lupercalia  must 
have  been,  rather,  a  psychological  product.  The  people's  state 
of  mind  during  the  war  with  Hannibal  is  clearly  indicated  by  the 
numerous  portents  which  were  announced.  Early  in  the  war  came 
an  omen  suggesting  that  Mars,  the  later  incarnation  of  the  old 
wolf-deity,  had  forsaken  his  people:  a  wolf  came  and  snatched 
a  guard's  sword  from  its  sheath  and  carried  it  off.63  A  little  later 
the  statues  of  the  wolf  which  were  in  Rome  sweated.64  Such  omens 
as  these  may  easily  have  caused  the  people  to  consider  with  concern 
the  ceremony  at  the  wolf's  cave,  and  to  wonder  if  that,  like  so  many 
others,  had  lost  its  power  to  protect  them.  Frequently  in  the  first 
alarm  of  Hannibal's  arrival  in  Italy,  blood  appeared  among  the 
omens.  Two  shields  exuded  drops  of  blood;  the  springs  at  Caere 
and  the  fount  of  Hercules  were  stained  with  blood;  at  Arretium 
the  reapers  found  themselves  harvesting  bloody  heads  of  grain; 
and  after  the  battle  of  Cannae  blood  flowed  in  the  river  beside 
Amiternum.65  These  omens  of  blood  are  a  wholly  natural  phenom- 
enon during  the  carnage  of  war;  but  it  would  be  equally  natural 
that  rites  which  employed  blood  as  a  means  of  purification  should 
appeal  to  the  people.  In  magic  and  in  religious  rites  akin  to  magic, 
the  homeopathic  principle  that  like  cures  like  is  always  potent. 

Assuming  that  the  insertion  of  the  blood-rite  into  the  Lupercalia 
could  most  easily  have  occurred  during  the  emotional  turmoil 
caused  by  the  Hannibalic  war,  we  may  perhaps  define  the  probable 
date  still  more  closely.  The  first  few  years  of  the  war  offer  the  least 
probability.  Livy  tells  explicitly  the  alarming  prodigies  that  oc- 
curred at  that  time,  and  the  strange  expedients  adopted  to  annul 
them.  Had  the  ceremony  of  the  Lupercalia  been  altered  then,  we 
should  certainly  expect  it  to  be  mentioned  along  with  the  other 
innovations.  But  as  the  war  goes  on,  Livy  gives  much  less  detail. 


The  Blood- Ceremony  of  the  Lupercalia  91 

Probably  his  artistic  sense  rebelled  at  painting  the  same  picture 
too  often.  After  the  battle  of  Cannae,  he  contents  himself  with 
saying  that  various  prodigies  occurred,  and  that  certain  unusual 
ceremonies  were  performed.66  Three  years  later,  when  there  was 
another  outburst  of  omens,  he  passes  on  with  the  mere  statement, 
"Due  measures  were  taken  by  decree  of  the  pontiffs."  67  As  the 
war  dragged  on,  "Such  religious  fervor,"  Livy  says,  "assailed  the 
state,  and  in  large  part  of  foreign  origin  at  that,  that  it  seemed  as 
if  either  men  or  gods  must  have  completely  changed."  Not  only 
within  private  houses  was  the  Roman  ritual  broken  down,  but 
even  in  the  Forum  and  in  the  Capitol  were  disorderly  throngs  of 
women  who,  neither  in  their  prayers  nor  in  their  sacrifices,  followed 
the  ritual  of  their  ancestors.68  Following  this,  came  the  command 
of  the  Senate  that  no  foreign  rites  be  performed  at  any  national 
shrine.69  This  order,  on  the  one  hand,  shows,  that  alien  ritual  acts 
had  invaded  the  established  state  ceremonials  of  the  Romans; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  it  improbable  that  the  blood-rite  of 
the  Lupercalia,  if  added  to  the  ceremony  at  this  time,  would  have 
continued.  Therefore  the  years  following  this  occurrence  offer  a 
more  reasonable  time  for  such  a  change.  The  Dionysia  of  186 
B.  C.  and  the  discovery  of  the  Pythagorean  Books  in  181  certainly 
cannot  have  been  isolated  outbreaks.  Had  Livy  chosen  to  give 
us  in  detail  the  changes  in  religious  ritual  which  occurred  during 
the  latter  part  of  the  period  of  the  foreign  wars,  he  might  have 
resolved  for  us  many  a  knotty  problem.  As  it  is,  we  have  to  admit 
that  after  the  first  two  years  of  the  war  with  Hannibal  there  oc- 
curred many  alterations  in  religious  belief  and  form  of  which  we 
know  nothing.  Among  these  innovations  which  Livy  passes  over 
in  silence,  might  easily  have  been  an  addition  of  Orphic  rites  to 
the  Lupercalia. 

It  is  interesting  that  Plutarch,  the  only  author  to  mention  the 
blood-ritual,  connects  its  origin  with  a  war.  But,  just  as  the  temple 
of  Jupiter  Stator,  which  was  actually  built  in  294  B.  C.,  was  re- 
ferred to  Romulus,  so  this  part  of  the  Lupercalia  was  said  to  be  a 
memorial  of  the  struggle  of  Romulus  with  Amulius,  "the  blood 
symbolizing  the  bloodshed  and  terror  of  that  time."  70 

A  scrap  of  evidence  suggests  that  the  blood-ceremony  was  not 
a  part  of  the  original  rites  of  the  Lupercalia.  Plutarch,  when  speak- 
ing of  those  upon  whom  the  blood-rite  was  performed,  always 


92  The  Lupercalia 

uses  the  word  boys,  peipaKia.  This  seems  an  impossible  term  to 
apply  to  the  Luperci.  Mark  Antony  was  consul  when  he  acted 
as  a  Lupercus.71  The  /*eip<ma,  therefore,  must  have  been  other 
than  the  priests  of  Lupercus.  Presumably  they  were  admitted 
into  the  ceremony  for  the  express  purpose  of  this  blood-ritual. 
But  this  would  give  a  clear  indication  that  the  blood-rite  was  not 
an  original  part  of  the  festival.  If  it  had  been,  the  Luperci  would 
have  been  the  natural  persons  for  the  central  figures,  not  two 
striplings.  Livy  says  that  the  missionaries  of  Dionysus  in  Rome 
sought  especially  to  win  the  young  to  their  mysteries,  and  that 
many  youths  of  high  rank  became  enthusiastic  devotees.72  The 
same  wave  of  emotion  may  have  introduced  the  boys  and  their 
mystic  rites  into  the  Lupercalia. 

If  such  was  the  case,  the  events  that  immediately  followed  explain 
why  Plutarch  is  the  only  one  who  mentioned  this  strange  part  of 
the  festival.  The  prompt  measures  taken  to  combat  the  Dionysia 
and  the  relentless  destruction  of  the  Pythagorean  books,  show  that 
the  Roman  authorities  were  resolved  to  rescue  their  state  religion 
from  these  emotional  beliefs  that  were  threatening  •  to  engulf  it. 
The  same  purpose  is  manifest  in  the  treatment  of  the  cult  of  Cybele : 
native  Romans  were  forbidden  to  join  her  priesthood,  and  the 
priests  were  restricted,  except  on  certain  days  of  the  year,  to  their 
own  precincts.73  It  was  not  until  the  time  of  Claudius  that  the 
Magna  Mater  was  restored  to  full  honor.74  In  view  of  this  state 
policy,  we  can  well  understand  that  Orphic  rites,  if  introduced  into 
the  Lupercalia,  would  soon  have  been  thrust  into  the  background. 
In  accord  with  this  policy  of  supression,  priests  and  the  compilers 
of  the  Fasti  would  naturally  have  avoided  making  any  record  of 
the  addition  of  these  foreign  rites  to  the  Lupercalia.  Thus  the 
silence  upon  that  subject  of  all  writers  except  Plutarch  would  be 
reasonably  accounted  for.  Almost  certainly  Ovid  knew  nothing 
of  this  ceremony.  It  was  the  Greek  poet  Butas,  who  would  natur- 
ally have  been  interested  in  this  rite  of  his  own  people,  who  seems 
to  have  been  Plutarch's  authority.  Plutarch  is,  likewise,  the  only 
one  to  comment  upon  the  sacrifice  of  the  dog,  a  rite  more  charac- 
teristically Greek  than  Roman. 

The  trifling  evidence  which  we  have  to  apply  to  this  problem  is, 
at  least,  not  against  the  theory  that  the  blood-rite  may  have  been 
introduced  into  the  Lupercalia  during  the  second  Punic  War  or 


The  Blood-Ceremony  of  the  Lupercalia  93 

the  years  immediately  following.  This  theory  is  wholly  in  accord 
with  reason.  We  have,  as  it  were,  two  sides  of  an  equation,  and 
it  is  tempting  to  place  between  them  the  sign  of  equality:  on  the 
one  side,  there  is  in  the  Lupercalia  an  incongruous  bit  of  cere- 
monial which  has  no  unity  with  the  other  cult-acts  of  the  festival, 
and  which  finds  no  parallel  in  the  ritualistic  practices  of  the  Romans, 
but  which  is  markedly  like  many  Greek  rites,  especially  those  of 
the  Orphics;  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  the  reception  in  Rome 
of  a  stream  of  Greek  deities  and  cults,  the  process  being  intensified 
by  the  strain  of  a  great  war,  when  the  people  repeatedly  sought 
help  from  just  such  mystic  rites  as  this  of  the  Lupercalia.  The  old' 
ceremonial,  devised  to  rid  man  of  all  that  would  obstruct  the  activity 
of  deific  power,  would  then  have  been  spiritualized  by  the  Orphic's 
assurance  of  perfect  cleansing  and  of  communion,  even  of  kinship, 
with  divinity. 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IX 

1.  Plut.,  Rom.,  21. 

2.  Tylor,  ii,  381. 

3.  Gruppe,  891. 

4.  Stengel,  Die  Griechischen  Kultusaltertumer,  139-42. 

5.  Aesch.,  Eum.,  283;  Apoll.  Rhod.,  4.  477-9,  704. 

6.  Stengel,  Opferbrditche  der  Griechen,  30;    Diels,  Sibyttinische  Blatter,  73. 

7.  Farnell,  iii,  168. 

8.  Prudent.,  Peristeph.,  10.  1011-50. 

9.  Cumont,  The  Mysteries  of  Mithra,  180. 

10.  Decharme,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  i,  1686. 

11.  Esperandieu,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  v,  50. 

12.  Stengel,  Kultusalt.,  150. 

13.  Farnell,  iii,  302. 

14.  Harrison,  481-9;  Monceaux,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  iv,  253. 

15.  Verg.,  Aen.,  3.  63-7. 

16.  Ov.,  Fast.,  2.  655. 

17.  Fest.,  178;  Ov.,  Fast.,  4.  731-4;   Prop.,  4.  i.  18. 

1 8.  Fowler,  R.  F.,  247. 

19.  Mackenzie,  Crete,  310-2.    See  also  above,  page  6. 

20.  Esperandieu,  in  Daremberg-Saglio,  v,  48,  49. 

21.  Lippert,  ii,  498. 

22.  Preller,   i,  339. 

23.  Smith,  Semites,  351;    see  also  Schoemann,  Griechische  Altertumer,  ii,  13. 

24.  Nonnus  Dionys.,  27.  228;  Poll.,  Onomast.,  8.    65;    7.    188;    Harpocrat., 


25.    Demosth.,  de  Cor.,  259;   Ammonius,  7repiAid£ai;   Lucian,  Necy.,  7. 


94  The  Lupercalia 

26.  Lippert,  ii,  537;    Diels,  122. 

27.  Fast.,  2.  19-28. 

28.  Athen.,  n.  56.  p.  478  d;   Harrison,  159-60. 

29.  Kaibel,  C.  I.  G.  I.  S.,  481  a,  b,  c.   For  the  discussion  of  these  tablets,  see 
Dieterich,  Hym.  orph.,  30-7;    id.,  Nekyia,  84-95;    Harrison,  573-99. 

30.  Reinach,  Une  formule  orphique,  in  Rev.  Arch.,  vol.  xxxix,  204. 

31.  Kaibel,  C.  /.  G.  I.  S.,  642,  481  a.    See  also  Harrison,  584,  586. 

32.  Hym.  orph.,  36.     See  also  Hesych.,  'Ept^tos. 

33.  Reinach,  Rev.  Arch.,  vol.  xxxix,  207;  id.  Cultes,  ii.  128;  Cook,  Zeus,  674-5. 

34.  Dieterich,  Eine  Mithrasliturgie,   171.     Milk  was  one  of  the  gifts  which 
streamed  from  the  earth  for  the  worshippers  of  Dionysus  (Eur.  Bacch.,  142,  708, 
et  al.}. 

35%    Reinach,  Cultes,  ii,  128. 

36.  Cook,  Zeus,  675-7. 

37.  Reinach,  Cultes,  ii,  129-32;  id.  Rev.  Arch.,  vol.  xxxix,  206;  Harrison,  594-7. 

38.  Farnell,  iii.,  301.   This  corresponds  to  the  usage  of  the  early  Christians,  by 
which  milk  was  offered  to  the  new  communicants  as  the  sign  of  new  birth  (Usener, 
Milch  und  Honig,  Rhein.  Mus.,  vol.  Ivii,  183). 

39.  Lippert,  ii,  564. 

40.  Mannhardt,  Myth.  Forsch^,  98. 

41.  Deubner,  Arch.  Rel.,  vol.  xiii,  502. 

42.  Demos.,  de  Cor.  313. 

43.  Farnell,  iii,  301. 

44.  Dr.  Deubner  (Arch.  Rel.,  vol.  xiii,  506-8)  believes  that  the  blood-ritual 
was  borrowed  from  the  Greeks,  and  that  it  signified  purification  and  new  birth. 
He  holds,  however,  that  it,  and  also  the  dog-sacrifice,  was  added  to  the  Lupercalia 
under  the  influence  of  Augustus.    In  view  of  Augustus's  rationalistic  temperament 
and  of  his  desire  to  restore  the  ancient  cults  of  Rome,  it  is  hard  to  accept  this  view. 

45.  For  the  earlier  influence  exerted  by  the  Cumaean  Sibyl  upon  the  religion 
of  Rome,  see  Wissowa,  R.  K.,  50-2;   Fowler,  R.E.,  255-66;    Carter,  Rel.  Rome, 
40-5- 

46.  For  a  survey  of  the  changes  effected  in  Roman  religion  during  this  period, 
see  Fowler,  R.  E.,  314-31;    Wissowa,  R.  K.,  58-64;    Carter,  Religion  of  Numa, 
104-15. 

47.  R.  £.,319. 

48.  Liv.,  22.  57.  6. 

49.  Harrison,  455. 

50.  See  p.  81  n.  43. 

51.  Wissowa,  R.  K.,  268-73. 

52.  Fowler,  R.  F.,  105. 

53.  Cic.,  Tusc.,  i.  38;  Liv.,  I.  18.  2. 

54.  Seep.  85. 

55.  Dieterich,  Hym.  orph.,  39. 

56.  Schwegler,  i,  683;   Pais,  A nc.  It.,  303-44. 

57.  Cic.,  Tusc.,  4.  2.  4. 

58.  Cic.,  Cat.  M.,  78. 

59.  Liv.,  i.  18.  2. 


The  Blood-Ceremony  of  the  Lupercalia  95 

60.  Liv.,  40.  29;   Plin.,  N.  H.,  13.  84-6. 

61.  Liv.,  39.  8-16. 

62.  Fowler,  R.  E.,  344-9. 

63.  Liv.,  21.  62.  4. 

64.  Liv.,  22.  I.  12. 

65.  Liv.,  22.  i.  9,  10;  22.  36.  7;  24.  44.  8. 

66.  Liv.,  22.  57.  2,  6. 

67.  Liv.,  24.  44.  9. 

68.  Liv.,  25.  i.  6-8. 

69.  Liv.,  25.  i. 

70.  Plut.,  ^ow.,  21. 

71.  Suet.,  Jul.t  79. 

72.  See  note  61.    See  also  Fowler,  7?.  E.,  347. 

73.  Dionys.,  2.  79. 

74.  Cumont,  jT/re  Oriental  Religions  in  Roman  Paganism,  55. 


CHAPTER  X 
RESUME 

More  than  a  thousand  years  before  the  Christian  era,  we  may 
imagine  the  hills  upon  the  Tiber  occupied  by  scattered  clans  of 
Ligurians.  From  their  remote  ancestors  they  had  inherited  a 
religion  that  was  mainly  of  fear,  and  that  sought  to  propitiate  the 
invisible  forces  that  seemed  lurking  to  do  harm.  To  the  people  of 
Italy  the  wolf  was  a  constant  object  of  terror,  and  so  it  had  very 
early  come  to  typify  this  destructive  power.  Accordingly  the 
tribes  dwelling  near  the  Palatine  came  to  the  Lupercal  and  tried 
to  propitiate  the  wolf-deity  that  dwelt  there.  They  offered  a  goat 
from  their  herds,  then  fled  with  all  speed  from  the  scene  of  the 
slaughter  of  a  sacred  animal.  Afterward,  having  expiated  their 
guilt,  they  returned  to  the  cave,  to  partake  in  sacramental  fashion 
of  the  victim.  In  this,  its  earliest  stage,  the  Lupercalia  was  an 
apotropaic  rite  whose  purpose  was  protection  against  evil. 

When  the  terramara  folk  settled  upon  the  Palatine,  they  found 
the  cult  at  the  wolf-cave  too  long  established  and  too  deeply  ven- 
erated to  be  eradicated  or  disregarded.  Therefore  they  incorpor- 
ated it  into  their  religion,  and  had  their  own  priests  share  in  the 
ritual.  Yet  the  part  assigned  to  the  new-comers  was  shadowy; 
the  Ligurian  priests  performed  all  the  significant  rites.  In  time 
the  practical  Romans  observed  that  the  goat-sacrifice  which  they 
offered  at  the  Lupercal  lacked  the  vigor  possessed  by  it  in  the  neigh- 
boring cults  of  Juno  Caprotina  and  Juno  Lucina,  in  which  blows 
from  the  victim's  hide  assured  to  the  worshippers  the  entrance  of 
the  god's  life-giving  power.  So  they  proceeded  to  reinforce  the 
rite  of  Lupercus  with  these  cult-acts  of  Juno.  Thus  the  Lupercalia 
had  a  new  purpose  added  to  the  old  one:  it  now  served  to  assure 
the  people  of  fertility. 

After  the  cult  of  the  dog  had  appeared  in  Italy,  a  dog-sacrifice 
was  regarded  as  an  especially  potent  means  of  purification.  It  was, 
accordingly,  adopted  by  the  Sabines,  an  intensely  devout  people, 
who  regarded  man's  impurity  as  the  root  of  all  disaster.  It  is  not 
hard  to  believe  that,  when  the  Sabines  took  under  their  care  some 
of  the  oldest  chthonic  cults  of  Rome,  and  devoted  the  month  of 


Resume  97 

February  wholly  to  cleansing  rites,  they  sought  to  add  potency  to 
the  Lupercalia,  which  occurred  in  the  middle  of  this  lustra!  period, 
by  including  in  its  rites  the  sacrifice  of  a  dog.  According  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  Sabines,  the  Lupercalia  could  best  perform 
its  old  purpose  of  protection  and  fertility  by  assuring  the  people 
of  purification. 

As  directed  by  the  Roman  priesthood,  Rome's  religion  tended  to 
become  stereotyped  and  formalistic.  At  a  time  of  peril  it  could 
offer  little  of  support  or  of  comfort.  Consequently  the  dark  days 
of  the  war  with  Hannibal  witnessed  the  reception  in  Rome  of  an 
unbroken  succession  of  chthonic  gods  and  of  their  orgiastic  rites. 
The  outworn  festivals  of  the  native  gods,  who  no  longer  helped  the 
people,  were  revivified  by  the  addition  of  Greek  ceremonies.  Such 
a  time  affords  a  natural  setting  for  the  introduction  into  the  Luper- 
calia of  acts  which  resemble  nothing  except  the  rites  of  the  Orphics. 
These  Orphic  ceremonies  possessed  a  power  of  lustration  so  strong 
that  they  assured  to  the  celebrant  an  entrance  into  a  new  state, 
where  he  was  one  with  the  gods.  Therefore  if  the  effete  ceremonial 
of  the  Lupercalia  was  reinforced  by  the  Orphic  sprinkling  with  blood 
for  perfect  cleansing,  and  the  mystic  use  of  milk  in  token  of  new 
life,  it  was  a  logical  culmination  of  a  festival  that  sought  to  protect 
the  people  from  harm  by  making  them  pure. 

In  the  development  of  the  Lupercalia,  the  old  was  not  replaced 
by  the  new  so  much  as  reinterpreted  by  it.  Protection  against 
evil  involved,  on  its  positive  side,  the  assurance  of  productivity. 
For  that,  cleanness  of  the  worshipper  was  essential,  hence  the  cere- 
mony became  dominantly  lustral.  According  to  later  theology, 
when  man  was  fully  cleansed,  he  became  akin  to  the  gods.  Having 
thus  been  reinforced  by  successive  new  ideas,  this  oldest  of  Rome's 
festivals  was  the  last  to  succumb  to  Christianity.  Even  when  Pope 
Gelasius  abrogated  it,  he  softened  his  act  by  establishing  on  the 
same  day  a  festival  celebrating  the  purification  of  the  Virgin.1 
Thus  transformed,  the  Lupercalia,  in  its  essential  meaning,  con- 
tinued to  live  on. 

i.  Baronius,  Annales  Ecclesiastics,  8.  60  fol. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

(This  list  is  not  a  complete  bibliography.    It  includes  simply  the 
volumes  that  have  been  quoted  or  referred  to  in  this  dissertation.) 

ADAM,  JAMES.    The  Religious  Teachers  of  Greece.    Edinburgh,  1909. 

D'ARBOis  DE  JUBAINVILLE,  HENRY.    Les  premiers  habitants  de  1'Europe  d'apres 

les  ecrivains  de  1'antiquite  et  les  travaux  des  linguistes2.     2.  volumes.     Paris, 

1889-94. 

Ausx,  EMIL.    Die  Religion  der  Romer.    Miinster,  1899. 

BABELON,  ERNEST.   Monnaies  de  la  republique  romaine.  2  volumes.  Paris,  1885-6. 
BECKER,  WILHELM  A.    De  Romae  veteris  muris  atque  portis.    Leipzig,  1842. 
BEDDOE,  JOHN.    The  Anthropological  History  of  Europe.     Paisley,  1912. 
BELOCH,  JULIUS.    Griechische  Geschichte2.    2  volumes.     Strassburg,  1912-14. 
BRITISH  MUSEUM.    Coins  of  Thrace.    See  Poole,  R.  S. 
BUECHELER,  FRANZ.    Umbrica.    Bonn,  1883. 

BURROWS,  RONALD  M.    The  Discoveries  in  Crete2.    London,  1908. 
CAMPBELL,  LEWIS.     Religion  in  Greek  Literature.     London,  New  York,  and 

Bombay,  1898. 
CARTER,  JESSE.    The  Religion  of  Numa.    London  and  New  York,  1906.    (Numa) 

— .    The  Religious  Life  of  Ancient  Rome.     Boston  and  New  York,   1911. 

(Rel.  Rome) 

CHADWICK,  HECTOR  MUNRO.    The  Heroic  Age.    Cambridge,  1912. 
COOK,  ARTHUR  B.    Animal  Worship  in  the  Mycenaean  Age.    Journal  of  Hellenic 

Studies,  vol.  xiv,  1894. 

.    Zeus,  a  Study  in  Ancient  Religion,  vol.  i.    Cambridge,  1914. 

COTTERILL,  H.  B.   Ancient  Greece.     New  York,  1913. 

CUMONT,  FRANZ.    The  Mysteries  of  Mithra  (translated  from  the  second  revised 

edition  of  the  French  by  T.  J.  McCormack).    Chicago,  1910. 
.   The  Oriental  Religions  in  Roman  Paganism   (authorized  translation). 

Chicago,  1911. 
DAREMBERG,  C,  et  SAGLIO,  E.  Dictionnaire  des  antiquites  grecques  et  romaines. 

5  volumes  in  9  parts.    Paris,  1877-1919. 
DEECKE,  WILHELM.    Die  Falisker.    Strassburg,  1888. 
DEUBNER,  LUDWIG.    De  incubatione.    Giessen,  1899. 

.  Lupercalia.  Archiv  fur  Religionswissenschaft, vol. xiii,  1910.  (Arch.  f.Rel.) 

DIELS,  HERMANN.    Sibyllinische  Blatter.    Berlin,  1890. 

DIETERICH,  ALBRECHT.    De  hymnis  orphicis.    Marburg,  1891.    (Hym.  orph.) 

.    Eine  Mithrasliturgie.     Leipzig,  1910.     (Mithras.) 

— .    Mutter  Erde.     Berlin,  1913. 
— .    Nekyia2.    Leipzig,  1913. 

DUSSAUD,  R.    Les  civilisations  prehelleniques2.     Paris,  1914. 
EVANS,  SIR  ARTHUR.    Minoan  and  Mycenaean  Element  in  Hellenic  Life.    Journal 

of  Hellenic  Studies,  vol.  xxxii,  1912.    (J.  H.  S.,  xxxii) 


Bibliography  99 

.    Mycenaean  Tree  and  Pillar  Cult.    Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies,  vol.  xxi, 

1901.    (J.  H.  S.,  xxi) 
.    New  Archaeological  Lights  on  the  Origins  of  Civilization  in  Europe. 

Annual  Report  of  Smithsonian  Institute,  1916.     (Smith.  Inst.,  1916) 
Scripta  Minoa.     Oxford,  1909 — .  (Scr.  Min.) 


FARNELL,  LEWIS  R.    Greece  and  Babylon.     Edinburgh,  1911.     (Gr.  Bab.) 

— .    Inaugural  Lecture  of  the  Wilde  Lecturer  in  Natural  and  Comparative 
Religion.     Oxford,  1909.     (N.  C.  R.) 

— .    Greek  Mythology  and  Religion.    The  Year's  Work  in  Classical  Studies. 
1908. 

— .    Sacrificial  Communion.  Hibbert  Journal,  vol.  iii,  1904.  (Hibbert  Jour.,  Hi) 
The  Cults  of  the  Greek  States.    5  volumes.    Oxford,  1896-1909.  (Farnell) 


PICK,  AUGUST.     Vorgriechische  Ortsnamen.     Gottingen,  1905. 
FOWLER,  WILLIAM  WARDE.    Roman  Festivals.    New  York,  1899.    (R.  F.) 
— .    Roman  Ideas  of  Deity.    London,  1914.     (Rom.  Deity) 

.   The  Religious  Experience  of  the  Roman  People.    London,  1911.    (R.  E.) 

FRAZER,  JAMES  G.     The  Golden  Bough,  a  Study  in  Magic  and  Religion3.     12 

volumes.     London,  1911-15. 
FREEMAN,  E.  A.     The  History  of  Sicily  from  the  Earliest  Times.     4  volumes. 

Oxford,  1891-4. 

FRIEDLANDER,  LUDWIG.    Herakles.     Berlin,  1907. 
GILBERT,  OTTO.    Geschichte  und  Topographic  der  Stadt  Rom  im  Altertum.    3 

volumes.     Leipzig,  1883-90. 

GOMME,  G.  L.    Ethnology  in  Folklore.    London,  1892. 
GRAILLOT,  H.    Le  culte  de  Cybele  mere  de  dieux  a  Rome  et  dans  1'empire  romain. 

Paris,  1912. 

GRANT,  MADISON.    The  Passing  of  the  Great  Race,  or  The  Racial  Basis  of  Euro- 
pean History2.     New  York,  1918. 
GRUPPE,  OTTO.   Griechische  Mythologie  und  Religionsgeschichte.   Miiller's  Hand- 

buch  der  klassischen  Altertumswissenschaft2,  Bd.  v,  Abt.  2.    Miinchen,  1906. 
HALL,  H.  R.    Aegean  Archaeology.    London,  1915.     (A.  A.) 

— .    The  Ancient  History  of  the  Near  East.    London,  1913.     (N.  E.) 
— .    The  Oldest  Civilization  of  Greece.     London  and  Philadelphia,    1901. 

(O.  C.  G.) 
HAMPEL,  J.     Neuere  Studien  iiber  die  Kupferzeit.     Zeitschrift  fiir  Ethnologic, 

vol.  ii,  1896. 
HARRISON,  JANE  E.    Prolegomena  to  the  Study  of  Greek  Religion*.    Cambridge, 

1908. 
HASTINGS,  JAMES.     Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and   Ethics.    New  York,  1908 — . 

Still  in  ^course  of  publication. 
HAWES,  C.  H.  and  H.  B.    Crete,  the  Forerunner  of  Greece.    London  and  New 

York,  1911. 
HEAD,  BARCLAY  V.     Historia  Nummorum,  a  Manual  of  Greek  Numismatics. 

New  Edition.     Oxford,  1911. 

HENZEN,  WILHELM.    Acta  Fratrum  Arvalium.     Berlin,  1874. 
HOGARTH,  D.  G.    Aegean   Religion.    Hastings,  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and 

Ethics,  vol.  i.    (Aeg.  Rel.) 


loo  The  Lupercalia 

.    Authority   and    Archaeology,    Sacred    and    Profane2.      London,    1899. 

(Auth.  &  Arch.) 

The  Zakro  Sealings.    Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies,  vol.  xxii,  1902.     (J. 


H.  S.f  xxii) 

HUNTERIAN  COLLECTION.    See  Macdonald,  G. 

HUSCHKE,  EDUARD.    Das  alte  romische  Jahr  und  seine  Tage.    Breslau,  1869. 
IMMERWAHR,  WALTER.    Die  Kulte  und  Mythen  Arkadiens.    Leipzig,  1891. 
JEVONS,  FRANK  B.     An   Introduction   to  the   History  of   Religion6.    London, 

1914. 
JORDAN,  HEINRICH.     De  larum  imaginibus.     Annali  dell'  Istituto,  vol.  xxxiii, 

1862.    (Lar.  im.) 
.   Kritische  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  lateinischen  Sprache.     Berlin, 

1879.    (Krit.  Beitr.) 
KEANE,  A.  H.    Man,  Past  and  Present  (revised  and  largely  rewritten  by  A.  H. 

Iniggen  and  A.  C.  Haddon).     Cambridge,  1920.     (M.  P.  P.) 

.   The  World's  Peoples.    New  York,  1908.     (W.  P.) 

KELLER,  OTTO.    Die  antike  Tierwelt.    Leipzig,  1909.    (Ant.  Tier.) 

.   Thiere    des    klassischen    Altertums.      2    volumes.      Innsbruch,    1887. 

(Thiere  Kl.  Alt.) 

KLAUSEN,  R.  H.    Aeneas  und  die  Penaten.    Hamburg,  1839-40. 
KRETSCHMER,  PAUL.     Einleitung  in  die  Geschichte  der  griechischen  Sprache. 

Gottingen,  1896. 
LANG,  ANDREW.    Homer  and  his  Age.    London,  1906.     (H.  A.) 

.   The  World  of  Homer.    London  and  New  York,  1910.     (W.  H.) 

LAWSON,  JOHN  C.    Modern  Greek  Folklore  and  Ancient  Greek  Religion.    Cam- 
bridge, 1910. 

LEAF,  WALTER.    Homer  and  History.    London,  1915. 
LIEBRECHT,  FELIX.    Zur  Volkskunde.    Heilbronn,  1879. 
LIPPERT,  JULIUS.    Allgemeine  Geschichte  des  Priestertums.  2  volumes.    Berlin, 

1883-4. 
LUBKERS,  FRIEDRICH.     Reallexikon  des  klassischen  Altertums8.     Leipzig  und 

Berlin,  1914. 
MACDONALD,  GEORGE.    Catalogue  of  Greek  Coins  in  the  Hunterian  Collection. 

Glasgow,  1899-1905.    (Hunterian  Collection) 
MACKENZIE,  DONALD  A.     Myths  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria.     London,   1915. 

(Bab.) 

.   Myths  of  Crete  and  Pre-Hellenic  Europe.    London,  1917.    (Crete) 

MANNHARDT,    W.      Mythologische   Forschungen.      Strassburg,    1884.      (Myth. 

Forsch.) 

.   Antike  Wald-  und  Feldkulte2.    Berlin,  1905.    (W.  F.) 

MARQUARDT,  JOACHIM.    Romische  Staatsverwaltung2.    3  volumes.    Leipzig,  1885- 

MERLIN,  A.    L'Aventin  dans  1'antiquite.    Paris,  1906. 

MEYER,    EDUARD.     Geschichte   des   Altertums3.     2   volumes.      Stuttgart    und 

Berlin,  1913. 


Bibliography  i  o  I 

MODESTOV,  VASILII  I.     Introduction  a  1'histoire  romaine  (translated  from  the 

Russian  by  Michel  Delines).    Paris,  1907.  ^ 

MOMMSEN,  THEODOR.     Romische  Forschungen.     Berlin,  1864.     (Rom.  Forsch.) 
.   The  History  of  Rome  (translated  from  the  German  by  W.  P.  Dickson). 

New  Edition.    New  York,  1903-5.     (H.  R.) 

MONTELIUS,  OSCAR.    Die  vorklassische  Chronologic  Italiens.    2  volumes.   Stock- 
holm, 1912.    (Chronologic) 
.   La  civilisation  primitive  en  Italic  depuis  1'introduction  des  metaux.    5 

volumes.    Stockholm,  1895-1910.     (Montelius) 
Mosso,  ANGELO.    The  Dawn  of  Mediterranean  Civilization  (translated  from  the 

Italian  by  Marian  C.  Harrison).    New  York,  1911. 
MULLER,  K.  O.     Die  Etrusker  (neue  Bearbeitung  von  Wilhelm  Deecke).     2 

volumes.   Stuttgart,  1877. 

MUNRO,  R.    Palaeolithic  Man  and  the  Terramara  Settlements  in  Europe.  Edin- 
burgh, 1912. 

MURRAY,  GILBERT.    Four  Stages  of  Greek  Religion.    New  York,  1912. 
MYRES,  J.  L.    A  History  of  the  Pelasgian  Theory.    Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies, 

vol.  xxvii,  1907. 

— .   The  Dawn  of  History.     New  York  and  London,  1911.     (D.  H.) 
NILSSON,  M.  P.    Griechische  Feste  von  religioser  Bedeutung  mit  Ausschluss  der 

attischen.     Leipzig,  1906. 

OSBORN,  H.  F.    Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age.    New  York,  1916. 
PAIS,  ETTORE.     Ancient  Italy  (translated  from  the  Italian  by  C.  D.  Curtis). 

Chicago,  1908.    (Anc.  It.) 
.   Ancient  Legends  of  Roman  History  (translated  from  the  Italian  by 

Mario  Cosenza).    New  York,  1905.     (Anc.  Leg.) 
PAULY-WISSOWA.      Real-Encyclopadie   der   klassischen    Altertumswissenschaft. 

Stuttgart.     1894 — •  Still  in  course  of  publication. 

PEET,  THOMAS  ERIC.    The  Stone  and  Bronze  Ages  in  Italy.    Oxford,  1909. 
PIGANIOL,  ANDRE.    Essai  sur  les  origines  de  Rome.    Paris,  1917. 
PINZA,  GIOVANNI.-    Monumenti  primitivi  di  Roma  e  del  Lazio  antico.      Monu- 

menti  antichi  della  reale  accademia  dei  Lincei,  vol.  xv,   1905.    Milan.    (Mon. 

Ant.) 
.     Bullettino    della  commissione  archeologica  comunale  di  Roma,  1900. 

(Bullettino) 

POOLE,  R.  S.    British  Museum.    Catalogue  of  Greek  Coins.    The  Tauric  Cherso- 
nese, Sarmatia,  Mysia,  Dacia,  Thrace,  etc.    London,  1877. 
PRELLER,  L.     Romische  Mythologie3  (bearbeitet  von  H.  Jordan).     2  volumes. 

Berlin,  1881-3. 
REINACH,  SALOMON.  Cultes,  Mythes  et  Religion.    4  volumes.     Paris,  1905-12. 

(Cultes) 
.   Orpheus  (translated  from  the  French  by  Florence  Simmons).    London 

and  New  York,  1909. 
.    Une    formule    orphique.       Revue    Archeologique,    vol.    xxxix,       1901. 

(Rev.  Arch,  xxxix) 
RHYS,  SIR  JOHN.    Lectures  on  the  Origin  and  Growth  of  Religion  as  Illustrated 

by  Celtic  Heathendom.    London,  1892. 


IO2  The  Lupercalia 

RIPLEY-  WILLIAM  Z.    The  Races  of  Europe.     New  York,  1899;   London,  1900. 
ROHDE,  ERWIN.     Psyche,  Seelencult  und  Unsterblichkeitsglaube  der  Griechen4. 

2  volumes.     Tubingen,  1907. 

ROSCHER,  WILHELM  H.    Apollo  und  Mars.    Leipzig,  1873. 

— .   Ausfiihrliches    Lexikon    der   griechischen    und    romischen    Mythologie. 

Leipzig,  1884 — .  Still  in  course  of  publication.     (Roscher) 

SAMTER,  ERNST.     Die  Familienfesten  der  Griechen  und  Romer.      Berlin,  1901. 
DE  SANCTIS,  GAETANO.    Storia  dei  Romani.    2  volumes.     Milan,  1907. 
SCHRADER,  OTTO.     Prehistoric  Antiquities  of  the  Aryan  Peoples  (translated  from 

the  second  German  edition  by  F.  B.  Jevons).    London  and  New  York,  1890. 

— .    Aryan  Religion  (Hastings,  Encyclopedia  of  Religion,  vol.  i). 

.    Die  Indogermanen.     Leipzig,  1911. 

SCHULZE,  WILHELM.     Zur  Geschichte  lateinischer  Eigennamen.     Berlin,   1904. 
SCHWEGLER,  A.     Romische  Geschichte2.     3  volumes.     Tubingen  und  Freiburg, 

1870-84. 
SERGI,  GIUSEPPE.    The  Mediterranean  Race  (authorized  translation).    London, 

1901. 
SMITH,  WILLIAM.    Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Biography  and  Mythology. 

3  volumes.    London,  1870.     (Diet.  Myth.) 

.    Dictionary  of  Greek  and   Roman  Geography.     2  volumes.     London, 

1870.     (Diet.  Geogr.) 
.    A  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities3.    2  volumes.    London, 


1890.    (Diet.  Ant.) 
SMITH,  W.  ROBERTSON.    The  Religion  of  the  Semites.    New  Edition.    London, 

1907.    (Semites) 
STENGEL,   PAUL.      Die  Griechischen   Kultusaltertiimer2.      Miiller's  Handbuch 

der   klassischen   Altertumswissenschaft2,  Bd.    v,    Abt.    3.      Miinchen,    1898. 

(Kultusalt.) 

— .   Opferbrauche  der  Griechen.     Leipzig,  1910. 
TAYLOR,  ISAAC.    The  Origin  of  the  Aryans2.    London,  1904. 
TOMASCHEK,  WILHELM.    Die  alten  Thraker.    Sitzungsberichte  der  philosophisch- 

historischen    Classe    der    kaiserlichen    Akademie    der    Wissenschaften,    Bd. 

cxxviii-cxxxi.     Wien,  1893-4. 
TSOUNTAS,  CHRESTOS,  and  MANATT,  J.  IRVING.    Mycenaean  Age.    Boston  and 

New  York,  1897. 

TYLOR,  E.  B.    Primitive  Culture4.    London,  1903. 

UNGER,  G.  F.    Die  Lupercalien.     Rheinisches  Museum,  vol.  xxxvi,  1881. 
USENER,  HERMANN.    Gotternamen.    Bonn,  1896. 

— .    Milch  und  Honig.    Rheinisches  Museum,  vol.  Ivii,  1902. 
WAGE,  A.  J.  B.,  and  THOMPSON,  M.  S.    Prehistoric  Thessaly.  Cambridge,  1912. 
WALDE,  ALOIS.     Lateinisches  etymologisches  Worterbuch2.     Heidelberg,  1910. 
WESTERMARCK,  EDVARD  A.    The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Moral  Ideas2. 

2  volumes.     London,  1908-12. 
WISSOWA,  GEORG.     Religion  und  Kultus  der  Romer.     Muller's  Handbuch  der 

klassischen  Altertumswissenschaft2,  Bd.  v,  Abt.  2.     Munchen,  1912.  (R.  K.) 
WORSAAE,  J.  J.  A.    The  Prehistory  of  the  North  (translated  by  H.  F.  M.  Simp- 
son).   London,  1886. 

-  W 


VITA 

Alberta  Mildred  Franklin  was  born  December  10,  1880,  at 
Farmingdale,  New  Jersey.  She  was  graduated  from  Wellesley 
College  with  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1904.  During  her 
course  she  was  made  a  Durant  Scholar.  She  received  the  degree  of 
Master  of  Arts  from  Columbia  University  in  1909.  In  1904-5  she 
was  teacher  of  Latin  and  Greek  in  the  High  School  of  Atlantic 
Highlands,  New  Jersey;  in  1905-6,  teacher  of  Latin  and  Ancient 
History  in  the  Girls'  Classical  School,  Pasadena,  California;  in 
1906—8,  teacher  of  Latin  and  English  in  the  Collegiate  School, 
Passaic,  New  Jersey;  in  1909-15,  teacher  of  Latin  and  Ancient 
History  in  the  Barnard  School  for  Girls,  New  York  City;  in  1915- 
19,  Professor  of  Latin  and  Greek  at  Lake  Erie  College,  Painesville, 
Ohio;  in  1919-21,  Associate  Professor  of  Latin  and  Greek  in  Wilson 
College,  Chambersburg,  Pennsylvania.  During  the  years  1907-14 
she  was  studying  at  Columbia  University  under  the  direction  of 
Professors  Frank  Frost  Abbott,  George  Willis  Botsford,  John 
Raymond  Crawford,  James  Chidester  Egbert,  Henry  Rushton 
Fairclough,  Roscoe  Guernsey,  Charles  Knapp,  Nelson  Glenn 
McCrea,  Harry  Thurston  Peck,  Edward  Delavan  Perry,  LaRue 
Van  Hook,  and  James  Rignall  Wheeler.  In  1921  she  was 
appointed  Professor  of  Classics  in  Wilson  College,  Chambersburg, 
Pennsylvania. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 

Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


1EZ7QIQ  SEP  1  3  Td  -10  AM  1 

L'      -  'f  LOAN 


-••  -  :   ; 


UNIV.  OF  CAUF.,  BERK. 
INTERUBRARY  LOAN 

MAY  05  1993 


UNIV.  OF  CAUf , 


General  Library 


Franklin, A U  / 
Lupercalia 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


